The world of Rugby League.

rleague.com

American pschopaths continue to mass murder .......

rabbitoh_fan

rabbitoh_fan

It is not necessarily a need. It is a want. Like people want to own cars capable on 300KPH.

As long as the safeguards are in place, I don't have a problem with people wishing to participate in rapid fire discipline. Not my cup of tea, but plenty like it.

The term military style weapons is a emotion puller. Automatic is another term.

Our Military use a small calibre firearm, high power .223. Far more damage can be done with heavier calibre and large magazines. 
rabbitoh_fan

rabbitoh_fan

Of course it would, but the bloke is a crook. Where do you think he will get the money? 
bandwagon

bandwagon

That is not my intent, I'm certain you realise what I mean. 
rabbitoh_fan

rabbitoh_fan

Sorry. It is just that most jump in with that term when in fact a .223 is not a heavy firearm. They used to call them the plastic fantastic, I think. Trouble is everyone thinks AK47 or Kalashnikov 
bandwagon

bandwagon

Was he? And does that really matter? The ultimate conclusion to that argument is to legalise his actions altogether, problem solved.

Overblown yes, but it is the same logic. 
rabbitoh_fan

rabbitoh_fan

Of course he is and of course it does. He may kill with a knife to obtain the money to purchase a firearm. If he wants to obtain a firearm out of legal channels, he is a crook. He will get what he needs regardless of price.

Use the extremes to prove the means. Not a concept I agree with. 
bandwagon

bandwagon

It goes to my previous point, small steps. You take the argument of no interference and you end with the extreme conclusion I drew, which all would agree as an unacceptable outcome, the issue then becomes at what point do the lawmakers make hurdles which must be overcome in order to minimise the chances of reaching the extreme.

Every person has their breaking point, all have their limitations, we can never be certain that this guy would not have done what he has done regardless of the difficulty he may have faced should things have been that little bit harder, but we can be certain that he did it the way things are. 
MrFourex

MrFourex

Small steps being ....... ban automatic weapons

Small steps being .....ban hand guns

Small steps being .....as an American, you have to take a mandatory psych evaluation test every 6 months from the ages of 10 yrs and upwards...for the rest of your life whether you want to own a gun or not. 
professional

professional

Mental health is not the issue here. Such testing would be expensive and for the most part wouldn't actually prevent what happened.

After all, what do you do when you find somebody has a mental illness? You can't force them to accept treatment. You can't lock them up. You could prevent them from having access to weapons but when they are so readily available it is unlikely to be very effective.

Mental health issues are very poorly understood by the general population and this is one of the biggest hurdles in their identification and successful management. I can't tell whether you are being serious or if this is tongue in cheek but your attitude is the type that perpetuates the problem. 
TheTongue

TheTongue

Guns aren't the problem; it's the person pulling the trigger. Just like someone using a pillow to suffocate a person, you don’t blame it on the pillow?. If guns were the problem, middle class areas in America like Valley Forge or in Texas (who have more guns per capita in America) should be running red with blood than areas and gun regulated areas like New York and Washington should be the most safest place in the US in which they are not.

In Switzerland, all males from the ages of 20 to 42 are required to have guns. The Swiss have almost no murders and a very low crime rate

Also here is another interesting point; Does anyone remember The Simpsons episode where Lisa wished for the whole world to be completely free from guns? only to have evil Aliens to invade Earth to enslave humanity effortlessly. I'm not saying Aliens will invade Earth, but when you leave citizens defenseless, they become more vulnerable to dictatorship.
In 1911 Turkey established gun control. Subsequently, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, deprived of the means to defend themselves, were rounded up and killed.

In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents were arrested and executed.

In 1938 Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945 over 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill, union leaders, Catholics and others, unable to fire a shot in protest, were killed by the state.
In 1956 Cambodia enshrined gun control. In just two years (1975-1977) over one million "educated" people (about 1/3 of the entire population!) were executed by the Reds.
In 1964 Guatemala locked in gun control. From 1964 to 1981 over 100,000 Mayan Indians were rounded up and killed, unable to defend themselves.
In 1970 the Ugandan dictator decreed gun control. During the next nine years over 300,000 Christians were murdered.
So yeah, at one part of the world you have a person killed by a hand gun in an armed society, at the other side of the world; you have mass graves filled with corpses numbering in their thousands in an unarmed society. If the population of Eastern Europe were as well armed as the average American, the Nazis would have had a difficult time trying to accomplish the holocaust.

Now secondly, look at automobiles and look at how many deaths they cause per year. Do we ban them? No because they are worth having despite the amount of deaths they cause, like how guns are worth having. They are good for self-protection, sport, hunting and other leisure stuff like target practicing. Furthermore, when a drunk driver kills a pedestrian, we don’t blame the car; we blame it on the driver. Keeping retarded maniacs away from the trigger should be seen as keeping drunks away from the steering wheel.

And even if guns vanished from the face of the earth, would there be peace...or would there be ruthless gangs of physically strong young larrikins who would be able to roam free and commit crimes at will. History has shown that civilisations and city dwellers who have amassed wealth through trade, co-operation and division of labour only to be victimised by ruthless gangs of rapists, murdering looting cutthroats, sweeping down on them and taking their loot and women etc. look up Mongols and Vikings for example. Basically violence has always been with humanity and always will be.

Which brings you to my third point, entrusting good citizens with guns helps even things out to the point where a school teacher can defeat a predator that spent his whole life practicing violence. Guns help level the playing field out where a woman can defend herself against a gang of thugs or a police against a brawling mob. 
TheTongue

TheTongue

In regards to the Second Amendment, the geniuses who wrote that were simply ahead of their time. If you wanna put it in historical context, you’ll realise that It was design to give power to the people because back then, a lot of people who migrated away to the US were escaping an oppressive totalitarian government. The presence of armed citizens is what keeps the government honest. No government would be crazy to enforce dictatorship on it’s people who are capable of resisting. And if you guys think “yeah right, as if the American government will enforce dictatorship on its people, it’s very friendly” that’s because the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] amendment kept that way. So yeah, If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
I kinda envy the freedom Americans have if you ask me.
So in the words of hip hop group Public Enemy “Fight the power” and “Don’t believe the hype!” 
professional

professional

A strong democracy keeps the government honest.

Every country you have mentioned had its recent political history characterised by a series of unstable governments, dictatorships or revolutions.

Those situations are not equivalent at all to the situations faced by the US or Australia or most other developed countries with strong, stable democracies. If our government starts crumbling and becomes replaced by a succession of short-lived governments and demagogues then I'd be happy to champion the Second Ammendment (or any equivalent law).

However, in our society it has no relevance. For every ridiculous far-right dictatorship or marxist revolutionary government you've listed, consider all the countries that have had strict gun laws and continue to have strong, thriving democracies: UK, Canada, Australia, Germany, Japan (both since WWII obviously), Sweden ...

Turn out to vote. Don't buy a gun.

Also Tongue, you should probably source your comments seeing as they have basically been copied word for word from NRA propaganda that has been doing the rounds on pro-gun websites for years. 
Lewis06

Lewis06

And what happens when those 'good citizens" wig out or lose their job or read a subliminal message in their breakfast cereal, or one of their family does the same? They go and get one of those guns that were entrusted to someone......a good citizen....and kill innocent people.
Police against a brawling mob? A brawling mob would not need to be shot, that would be an excessive use of force, and I don't think anyone, myself included is asking for Police to be unarmed, I prefer them to be armed, they are our protectors.....not the doomsday prepper freak with a twitch who lives down the road with a personal armourey that would rival a small town police force. 
bandwagon

bandwagon

For a start, restrictions on use , security and storage, ban or restrict larger calibre auto's, remove the right to carry a handgun, again restrict or ban the sale of larger semi calibre semi auto's.

A national approach to licensing , again with tighter checks in place, compulsory training, in safe use and storage, with a system of revision.

Small but realistic changes that begin a process. Simply banning things doesn't work.

I suppose the best analogy I can think of is the way successive governments have dealt with smoking in this country. People are still smoking and dying, but the numbers are slowly but surely receding. 
rabbitoh_fan

rabbitoh_fan

I forgot to mention that the new laws allow for storing bolts in the same gun safe as the rifles, but in another locked box. Mine are completely separate which I think is better 
BuckinBronco

BuckinBronco

How many before the buy back? http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/Other-Research/2006InjuryPrevent.pdf

In the 18years before the buy back there were 13 mass shootings resulting in 104 deaths and a further 52 wounded. That's a hell of a lot of mass shootings.

How many since the buy back? 0. Coincidence? 
rabbitoh_fan

rabbitoh_fan

In Australia. That surprises me. The one thing I notice is that the trend downwards has not varied. That says to me that the killings are still happening, but not in mass shootings. These figures are not a patch on the American problem

Not impressed by the condescending ?

You seem to think I am anti control. I am not as I feel I contain my firearms better than the law requires.

I see in your graph that non firearm suicide and homicide has increased. And total homicide is down by about 50.

Before anyone attacks me, my point is that we have a far different mentality to this problem than the Americans. This, I think, is the bigger problem. 
bandwagon

bandwagon

Like many debates this is a problem, there seems little room for middle ground as voices on the extreme of both sides of the fence are the only ones heard. 
rabbitoh_fan

rabbitoh_fan

I will shut up then as it seems I can see both sides. 
BuckinBronco

BuckinBronco

The ? Was because it was a question, nothing more.

With regard to the point on trends etc in relation to the buy back, the linked article puts it nicely I think:

"In the 10.5 years which followed the gun buy-back announcement (May 1996–October 2006), no mass shootings have occurred in Australia. As one study on the Australian firearm buy-back notes: ‘‘Given that mass murders cause so much community fear, it is appropriate to choose this as an evaluation outcome separate from homicide rates gener- ally.’’11 Yet, in a recent paper examining the same dataset,7 two authors with declared affiliations with firearm advocacy groups failed entirely to report on this fundamental outcome, and issued press releases headlined Gun Laws Failed to Improve Safety and New Research Vindicates Gun Owners.12 13 Given that the banning of semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns was premised on the explicit objective of reducing the likelihood of mass shootings, such a flagrant omission from their analysis is extraordinary.
We suggest an analogy here. If a government addressed a recurrent incidence of level crossing car/train collisions by mandating alarmed barrier gates, it would be appropriate to ask two questions when later evaluating the effect of such a measure. One could ask ‘‘Have there been fewer level crossing car/train collisions and fatalities?’’ and ‘‘Have there been fewer road toll deaths from any cause?’’. The outlawing of rapid-fire rifles and shotguns in the revised Australian gun laws was the equivalent of level crossing barrier gate legislation: its primary intention was to reduce mass shootings, a national concern after the Port Arthur massacre. Accelerating the reduction in overall firearm deaths—as occurred—is a bonus....." 
rabbitoh_fan

rabbitoh_fan

Taken in isolation that is good, but the total of homicides has only decreased by 50 in the 16 years according to the graphs.

We did not have the problem America has.

It is a good study in that PDF. Take time to get it all in.

I accept it was a question. Would have preferred a statement. :) 
professional

professional

Please don't. I think most people would prefer gun owners like you expressing an opinion than someone like The Tongue, who seems to think the right to carry high-powered rifles is the only thing preventing Julia Gillard from turning into an Orwellian dictator. 
professional

professional

Statistically speaking the fact that the trend has not changed is not actually unexpected. I think you've already touched on the reason yourself; gun buy backs don't necessarily mean that the people with guns are now going to be safer, it just reduces the number of firearms. The trend itself is a function of other factors, such as education and cultural changes.

However, both approaches work well. The cultural change and education is something that can be continually done. But the buy back scheme is also a very effective measure and it is worth pointing out that it basically achieved the same reduction in deaths by firearms that would have taken about a decade otherwise. That isn't an insignificant number.

A gun buy back in the US will not solve all the problems and only addresses a part of the problem (as your figure demonstrates). However, it would have an effect and a positive one too. There just needs to be other things done in conjunction with it. 
rabbitoh_fan

rabbitoh_fan

That is a misconception. Gun numbers increased after the buy back. It was only the , mostly, .22 calibre autos that were taken out of circulation. I knew many who got ridiculous money for them and immediately replaced them, Some buying two in place of one. There have been some overseas buy backs that valued the firearms at a reasonable price and they were well frequented. We went over the top. A mistake.

And did you mean the people without guns would be safer? 

Recent Rugby League Posts

Fromthenest - Well there you go. Apparently Wide Bay's final is being played Thursday between Norville SS of Bundy and St Pat's Gympie. I am lead to be...
seaeagles - your post is a good while back now,but I think you are on to a good thing there.i am based on the southern tip of the central coast(ex-Sy...
ALX21 - RD 20 ResultsBroncos: J.Nikorima goal
OutbackEyes - CAIRNS FAR NORTH QUEENSLAND 2014 Tassell Trophy Club Challenge Under 14’s Carnival will be held at Vico Oval, Irene St Mooroobool, Cairns...
Leblancboys - Carina have had a number of season ending injuries and a coaching crisis mid year which can hurt the boys. East have been struggling for ...
tarifsetu - Saturday 6 September 2014, Australia vs South Africa live rugby streaming online championship 2014 match watch HD TV broadcast Full Free ...
tarifsetu - Saturday 6 September 2014, Australia vs South Africa live rugby streaming online championship 2014 match watch HD TV broadcast Full Free ...
ALX21 - Cowboys should lock Marshall Hudson in for a few years. One to keep an eye on.

Game by Game Discussions

Table 'rleague.meeting' doesn't exist
SELECT m.SportID as CategoryID, 'SportID' as CategoryType, m.Name as MeetingName, e.Name as EventName, m.MeetingID, e.EventID, e.EventNumber, e.StartTime, e.ForumPosts as Posts FROM `event` e INNER JOIN meeting m ON m.MeetingID = e.MeetingID WHERE NOT e.`Status` = 'closed' AND e.EndTime > UTC_TIMESTAMP() AND (m.SportID = 4 AND m.Removed = 0) AND (ISNULL(OrderIndex) OR OrderIndex <= 100) GROUP BY e.EventID ORDER BY e.StartTime LIMIT 20
backtrace/var/www/html/core/master.php800mc/var/www/html/data/forumPosts.php737loadUpcomingEvents/var/www/html/api/v2/api.php160Process/var/www/html/api/v2/api.php75Run/var/www/html/core/master.php866renderSlats/var/www/html/rleague/Forum_Right.php53include_once/var/www/html/Forum.php181