4 ms·

If the guns pose no threat to would-be tyrants, why would they need to take them away? We expect our government to protect our individual rights and allowing c

by nverno 5y ago

If the guns pose no threat to would-be tyrants, why would they need to take them away? We expect our government to protect our individual rights and allowing citizens to maintain some degree of dangerousness is a nod to that effect. Even basic arms are great equalizers allowing anyone to protect themselves fairly well in practice.

Barrin92 5y ago
>If the guns pose no threat to would-be tyrants, why would they need to take them away? because they pose plenty of threat to each other, which was in fact one of the reasons for the biggest change in modern Australian history, the Port Arthur massacre[1] Australia, like many other nations does not have the same tolerance that the US has when it comes to violence. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australi...
- nverno 5y ago
  Do the new restrictions make Aussies think someone hellbent of murdering people like this wouldn't be able to do so? I see stories of people committing mass murders by driving vans through crowded streets, for example. It is interesting that these restrictions pre-date the country's more authoritarian move. Disarming the populace occurred prior to communist takeovers, eg. Russia early 20th
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    The data indicates so, yes. I suggest you look up the numbers.
  - SturgeonsLaw 5y ago
    Of course if someone wanted to inflict harm there are other ways to do it, but banning guns removes one very effective way of doing it. The claim that guns protect against the tyranny of government is dubious, since it seems to imply that civilians shooting at police or soldiers would improve an already dire situation - that seems unlikely. Gun control has broad support in Australia - in a poll, 40% of respondents think the laws are fine as they are, 45% said they should be even stronger, and 6% said they were too strong. https://essentialvision.com.au/gun-laws https://essentialvision.com.au/gun-laws
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by nverno 5y ago

Barrin92 5y ago

>If the guns pose no threat to would-be tyrants, why would they need to take them away? because they pose plenty of threat to each other, which was in fact one of the reasons for the biggest change in modern Australian history, the Port Arthur massacre[1] Australia, like many other nations does not have the same tolerance that the US has when it comes to violence. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australi...

nverno 5y ago
Do the new restrictions make Aussies think someone hellbent of murdering people like this wouldn't be able to do so? I see stories of people committing mass murders by driving vans through crowded streets, for example. It is interesting that these restrictions pre-date the country's more authoritarian move. Disarming the populace occurred prior to communist takeovers, eg. Russia early 20th
- arcticbull 5y ago
  The data indicates so, yes. I suggest you look up the numbers.
- SturgeonsLaw 5y ago
  Of course if someone wanted to inflict harm there are other ways to do it, but banning guns removes one very effective way of doing it. The claim that guns protect against the tyranny of government is dubious, since it seems to imply that civilians shooting at police or soldiers would improve an already dire situation - that seems unlikely. Gun control has broad support in Australia - in a poll, 40% of respondents think the laws are fine as they are, 45% said they should be even stronger, and 6% said they were too strong. https://essentialvision.com.au/gun-laws https://essentialvision.com.au/gun-laws

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]