5 ms·
Bit harsh, compared to America it's still saner day-to-day with healthcare, gun control, and very liveable cities with public transport. And it isn't like othe
by guitarbill 8y ago
Bit harsh, compared to America it's still saner day-to-day with healthcare, gun control, and very liveable cities with public transport.
And it isn't like other western countries aren't thinking of doing something similar. While this is a bad law, being smug about it is the wrong reaction.
- magduf 8y agoWhich other western and non-English-speaking countries are doing similar things? This democratic-authoritarianism seems to be unique to the Five Eyes nations.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- CalRobert 8y agoI don't mean to be smug. It's just kind of sad to see what's happened to a country with enormous soft power. Same goes for the US. I wish I knew more western countries who were defending privacy, and the environment for that matter. For a period it kind of looked like Germany _might_ but that hasn't stood up (Who knows, maybe the Pirate Party will get a chancellor someday). The Nordics don't seem amazing either. What does that leave us with? Some rocky archipelago in the middle of the Pacific? Developing nations that simply don't care or lack the ability to have meaningful enforcement? I'm really struggling to think of something.
- dimensi0nal 8y ago>gun control The Australian government definitely seems like the type of government that can be trusted with a monopoly on violence!
- manicdee 8y agoThere’s no monopoly on violence. Gun laws are about who can’t have guns, not who can.
- CompanionCuuube 8y agoPeople have the idea that gun control affects who either can and can't have guns. They forget about the third possibility: Schroedinger's gun owner who is in a superposition of can and can't have guns at the same time.