Welcome to the AppalachianTrailCafe.net!
Take a moment and register and then join the conversation

Just Another Reason I Like Aussie's

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • OzJacko wrote:

      Not able to post link as I am not that good with the phone but search I just did on Wikipedia showed homicide rates per 100,000 as being 0.86 for Australia and 8.64 for USA.
      And that doesn't count the other 20,000+ gun related deaths you have.
      The 2nd amendment doesn't seem to be working for you.
      From what I saw the only comparable countries are mostly war zones.
      Do a little more research and see how many millions were killed in countries where people could not have guns.
      I may grow old but I'll never grow up.



    • GOVERNMENT GENOCIDE CAMPAIGNS AND THE
      "GUN CONTROL" LAWS THAT HELPED SLAUGHTER 56 MILLION PEOPLE





      PERPETRATOR GOVERNMENTDATETARGET# MURDERED (ESTIMATED)DATE OF GUN CONTROL LAWSOURCE DOCUMENT
      Ottoman Turkey1915-1917Armenians1-1.5 million1886-1911Art. 166, Penal Code
      Art. 166 Penal Code
      Soviet Union*1929-1953Anti-Communists / Anti-Stalinists20 million1929Art. 182 Penal Code
      Nazi Germany** & Occupied Europe1933-1945Jews, Gypsies, Anti-Nazis13 million1928-1938Law on Firearms & Ammunition, April 12 Weapons Law, March 18
      China*1949-1952 1957-1960 1966-1976Anti- Communists Rural Populations Pro-Reform Grou20 million1935-1957Arts. 186-7, Penal Code Art. 9, Security Law, Oct. 22
      Guatemala1960-1981Maya Indians100,0001871-1964Decree 36, Nov 25 Decree 283, Oct 27
      Uganda1971-1979Christians Political Rivals300,0001955-1970Firearms Ordinance Firearms Act
      Cambodia1975-1979Educated Persons1 million1956Arts. 322-8, Penal Code
      I may grow old but I'll never grow up.

    • OzJacko wrote:

      Not able to post link as I am not that good with the phone but search I just did on Wikipedia showed homicide rates per 100,000 as being 0.86 for Australia and 8.64 for USA.
      And that doesn't count the other 20,000+ gun related deaths you have.
      The 2nd amendment doesn't seem to be working for you.
      From what I saw the only comparable countries are mostly war zones.
      If you check further you will find that our non-gun homicide rates are proportionately higher than yours as well, we have more of a killing people problem than anything else.

      Digging even deeper you will find that the violence rates are disproportionately much higher among certain socioeconomic groups which is a problem that our country seems to not want to address.

      I could also site studies that claim guns are used by citizens for self defense up to 1000 times per day on average. Of course you never hear about this since guns are almost never fired in self defense situations and therefore it rarely makes for a good news story. The vast majority of times that guns are used for self defense involve the gun merely being brandished and the aggressor the retreating or surrendering (it turns out that criminals prefer not to be shot given the option and most law owners prefer not to shoot unless absolutely necessary.)
      Dogs are excellent judges of character, this fact goes a long way toward explaining why some people don't like being around them.

    • hikerboy wrote:

      violence begets violence. Americans own more guns than we have people. Even more guns certainly isn't the answer.

      Actually the number of guns posessed by American Civilians has skyrocketed in the last few decades, at the same time our murder rate has plummeted by around 20%. Post hoc ergo propter hoc, having more guns is safer :rolleyes:
      Dogs are excellent judges of character, this fact goes a long way toward explaining why some people don't like being around them.

    • Drybones wrote:

      OzJacko wrote:

      The families of over 30,000 of your citizens each year may disagree.
      I wonder how many of those 30,000 would still be alive if they would have had a gun?
      Only a third were homicides so less than that number.
      The rest were mostly suicides and accidents so presumably having the gun was actually the issue.
      Re your other stats are you saying that without your privately owned guns your government may engage in mass killings of a segment of your population?
      Ourselves and Western Europe, being the countries most similar in demographics and political systems don't have that problem.
      Resident Australian, proving being a grumpy old man is not just an American trait.

    • SarcasmTheElf wrote:

      One thing we can all agree on is that none of us are going to change our minds on the subject.
      actually violent crime dropped significantly as more crackheads died off, saw a huge spike in the 80s and has tailed off since then

      [IMG:http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/figure_3.jpg]

      I think its important to save as many lives as possible, and don't think any level is "acceptable".
      its all good

    • hikerboy wrote:

      SarcasmTheElf wrote:

      One thing we can all agree on is that none of us are going to change our minds on the subject.
      actually violent crime dropped significantly as more crackheads died off, saw a huge spike in the 80s and has tailed off since then

      I think its important to save as many lives as possible, and don't think any level is "acceptable".
      I'm aware, you did catch that I said post hoc ergo propter hoc, correct?
      Dogs are excellent judges of character, this fact goes a long way toward explaining why some people don't like being around them.

    • OzJacko wrote:

      rafe wrote:

      Hey, we're also #1 in incarceration rates... and we have privatized jails. Is this a great country or what?
      You also have a death penalty in many of your states.How's that one working out?
      Great if they would just cut down on the wait time by about 99%. Public hangings right after the trial would be much more effective.
      The road to glory cannot be followed with much baggage.
      Richard Ewell, CSA General

    • SarcasmTheElf wrote:

      hikerboy wrote:

      SarcasmTheElf wrote:

      One thing we can all agree on is that none of us are going to change our minds on the subject.
      actually violent crime dropped significantly as more crackheads died off, saw a huge spike in the 80s and has tailed off since then
      I think its important to save as many lives as possible, and don't think any level is "acceptable".
      I'm aware, you did catch that I said post hoc ergo propter hoc, correct?
      i may have to consult another kevin before responding.

      anyway, what can we do to make our communities safe(without taking away anyone's legally owned guns)?
      its all good

    • OzJacko wrote:

      TrafficJam wrote:

      socks wrote:

      I like Aussies cause they gave us, Vegemite, the boomerang, they babysit many of the planets nastiest snakes, and they gave us "Mick Dundee...from Australia" Olivia too. And cause they like to drink, fight and cuss.
      and their accents <sigh>. :)
      We don't have accents.You have accents. New England accents, mid west accents, Louisiana accents, Texan accents etc etc.
      We all talk the same. No accent.
      :)
      really now, Jacko sounds like no Aussie I've ever seen on TV!
      Cheesecake> Ramen :thumbsup:

    • CoachLou wrote:

      OzJacko wrote:

      TrafficJam wrote:

      socks wrote:

      I like Aussies cause they gave us, Vegemite, the boomerang, they babysit many of the planets nastiest snakes, and they gave us "Mick Dundee...from Australia" Olivia too. And cause they like to drink, fight and cuss.
      and their accents <sigh>. :)
      We don't have accents.You have accents. New England accents, mid west accents, Louisiana accents, Texan accents etc etc.We all talk the same. No accent.
      :)
      really now, Jacko sounds like no Aussie I've ever seen on TV!
      Lou, what caliber are your red hiking poles?
      Dogs are excellent judges of character, this fact goes a long way toward explaining why some people don't like being around them.

    • So often over looked is the fact that most gun owners are not criminals and therefore not the problem. Civilians are the last line of defense against intruders foreign and domestic, geez, am I the only one that saw "Red Dawn" (not the new one, the original one with swayze). :D

    • socks wrote:

      So often over looked is the fact that most gun owners are not criminals and therefore not the problem. Civilians are the last line of defense against intruders foreign and domestic, geez, am I the only one that saw "Red Dawn" (not the new one, the original one with swayze). :D
      the 2nd amendment had little to do with national security and all to do in ensuring our government wasnt the only party who bore arms.
      its all good

    • hikerboy wrote:

      socks wrote:

      So often over looked is the fact that most gun owners are not criminals and therefore not the problem. Civilians are the last line of defense against intruders foreign and domestic, geez, am I the only one that saw "Red Dawn" (not the new one, the original one with swayze). :D
      the 2nd amendment had little to do with national security and all to do in ensuring our government wasnt the only party who bore arms.
      I fail to see the distinction, those are one in the same.
      Dogs are excellent judges of character, this fact goes a long way toward explaining why some people don't like being around them.

    • law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

      "The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right."
      its all good

    • AN OLD WOMAN WALKED UP AND TIED HER OLD MULE TO THE HITCHING POST.
      AS SHE STOOD THERE, BRUSHING SOME OF THE DUST FROM HER FACE AND CLOTHES, A YOUNG GUNSLINGER S...TEPPED OUT OF THE SALOON WITH A GUN IN ONE HAND AND A BOTTLE OF WHISKEY IN THE OTHER. THE YOUNG GUNSLINGER LOOKED AT THE OLD WOMAN AND LAUGHED, "HEY OLD WOMAN, HAVE YOU EVER DANCED?"
      THE OLD WOMAN LOOKED UP AT THE GUNSLINGER AND SAID, "NO,... I NEVER DID DANCE... NEVER REALLY WANTED TO."
      A CROWD HAD GATHERED AS THE GUNSLINGER GRINNED AND SAID "WELL, YOU OLD BAG, YOU'RE GONNA DANCE NOW," AND STARTED SHOOTING AT THE OLD WOMAN'S FEET.
      THE OLD WOMAN PROSPECTOR -- NOT WANTING TO GET HER TOE BLOWN OFF --STARTED HOPPING AROUND. EVERYBODY WAS LAUGHING. WHEN HIS LAST BULLET HAD BEEN FIRED, THE YOUNG GUNSLINGER, STILL LAUGHING, HOLSTERED HIS GUN AND TURNED AROUND TO GO BACK INTO THE SALOON.
      THE OLD WOMAN TURNED TO HER PACK MULE, PULLED OUT A DOUBLE-BARRELED SHOTGUN, AND COCKED BOTH HAMMERS.
      THE LOUD CLICKS CARRIED CLEARLY THROUGH THE DESERT AIR, AND THE CROWD STOPPED LAUGHING IMMEDIATELY.
      THE YOUNG GUNSLINGER HEARD THE SOUNDS, TOO, AND HE TURNED AROUND VERY SLOWLY. THE SILENCE WAS ALMOST DEAFENING. THE CROWD WATCHED AS THE YOUNG GUNMAN STARED AT THE OLD WOMAN AND THE LARGE GAPING HOLES OF THOSE TWIN BARRELS.
      THE BARRELS OF THE SHOTGUN NEVER WAVERED IN THE OLD WOMAN'S HANDS, AS SHE QUIETLY SAID, "SON, HAVE YOU EVER KISSED A MULE'S ASS?"
      THE GUNSLINGER SWALLOWED HARD AND SAID, "NO M'AM... BUT I'VE ALWAYS WANTED TO.
      THERE ARE FIVE LESSONS HERE FOR ALL OF US:
      1 - Never be arrogant.
      2 - Don't waste ammunition.
      3 - Whiskey makes you think you're smarter than you are.
      4 - Always make sure you know who has the power.
      5 - Don't mess with old people; they didn't get old by being stupid.
      Changes Daily→ ♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫ ♪♫♪♫♪♫ ← Don't blame me. It's That Lonesome Guitar.

    • OzJacko wrote:

      Drybones wrote:

      OzJacko wrote:

      The families of over 30,000 of your citizens each year may disagree.
      I wonder how many of those 30,000 would still be alive if they would have had a gun?
      Only a third were homicides so less than that number.The rest were mostly suicides and accidents so presumably having the gun was actually the issue.
      Re your other stats are you saying that without your privately owned guns your government may engage in mass killings of a segment of your population?
      Ourselves and Western Europe, being the countries most similar in demographics and political systems don't have that problem.
      Was Germany part of Europe in 1940? They killed 13 million Jews....never mind, they used gas. How much do you think the heart of man has changed in those few years.
      I may grow old but I'll never grow up.

    • Drybones wrote:

      OzJacko wrote:

      Drybones wrote:

      OzJacko wrote:

      The families of over 30,000 of your citizens each year may disagree.
      I wonder how many of those 30,000 would still be alive if they would have had a gun?
      Only a third were homicides so less than that number.The rest were mostly suicides and accidents so presumably having the gun was actually the issue.Re your other stats are you saying that without your privately owned guns your government may engage in mass killings of a segment of your population?
      Ourselves and Western Europe, being the countries most similar in demographics and political systems don't have that problem.
      Was Germany part of Europe in 1940? They killed 13 million Jews....never mind, they used gas. How much do you think the heart of man has changed in those few years.
      So you're invoking the Holocaust in defense of the NRA goal of universal gun ownership? That's chutzpah.

    • by the time the average German figured out what the Nazis we're it was too late. The nazis had all the guns. One of the first things the Nazis did was collect firearms from the population. I wonder why they did that? Hitler had how many attempts on his life?

      rafe wrote:

      Drybones wrote:

      OzJacko wrote:

      Drybones wrote:

      OzJacko wrote:

      The families of over 30,000 of your citizens each year may disagree.
      I wonder how many of those 30,000 would still be alive if they would have had a gun?
      Only a third were homicides so less than that number.The rest were mostly suicides and accidents so presumably having the gun was actually the issue.Re your other stats are you saying that without your privately owned guns your government may engage in mass killings of a segment of your population?Ourselves and Western Europe, being the countries most similar in demographics and political systems don't have that problem.
      Was Germany part of Europe in 1940? They killed 13 million Jews....never mind, they used gas. How much do you think the heart of man has changed in those few years.
      So you're invoking the Holocaust in defense of the NRA goal of universal gun ownership? That's chutzpah.
      Sometimes you will never know the value of a moment until it becomes a memory.
      Dr. Seuss Cof123

    • The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with gun violence.

      It was put in place to make sure the right of citizens to defend themselves. The police are not required to defend us.

      Also its there due to them living in Europe and England, where private individuals couldn't defend themselves. They weren't allowed to keep arms.

      I've never owned a gun. I've never shot anyone at anytime.

      Australia: 28 million people

      United States: 324 million

      Also understand that many gangs shoot at each other over drug sales turf. And some people count up to age 25 as kids. Why ? I don't know. Well, I do know, they are anti-guns.
      --
      "What do you mean its sunrise already ?!", me.

    • Drybones wrote:

      OzJacko wrote:

      Drybones wrote:

      OzJacko wrote:

      The families of over 30,000 of your citizens each year may disagree.
      I wonder how many of those 30,000 would still be alive if they would have had a gun?
      Only a third were homicides so less than that number.The rest were mostly suicides and accidents so presumably having the gun was actually the issue.Re your other stats are you saying that without your privately owned guns your government may engage in mass killings of a segment of your population?
      Ourselves and Western Europe, being the countries most similar in demographics and political systems don't have that problem.
      Was Germany part of Europe in 1940? They killed 13 million Jews....never mind, they used gas. How much do you think the heart of man has changed in those few years.
      The German army found it very easy to disarm the local populace. They just went down to the local police department, opened the gun registration files, and went door to door and took the weapons.

      The French Resistance had few guns in WW2. The British SOE had to parachute guns into France so the Resistance could fight.
      --
      "What do you mean its sunrise already ?!", me.

    • JimBlue wrote:

      The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with gun violence.

      It was put in place to make sure the right of citizens to defend themselves. The police are not required to defend us.

      Also its there due to them living in Europe and England, where private individuals couldn't defend themselves. They weren't allowed to keep arms.

      I've never owned a gun. I've never shot anyone at anytime.

      Australia: 28 million people

      United States: 324 million

      Also understand that many gangs shoot at each other over drug sales turf. And some people count up to age 25 as kids. Why ? I don't know. Well, I do know, they are anti-guns.
      in addition, australia is surrounded by water. much easier to defend its borders, as well as keeping the criminal element out than the us.
      as far as gang wars over drug turf, its another example of our "drug war" being a total failure. it has not stemmed drug abuse, and creates needless violence, and turns many otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals.
      its all good

    • hikerboy wrote:

      you know its funny no where in this thread has anyone suggested taking peoples guns away from them what is being suggested is trying to find ways to reduce the amount of gun violence in this country which is totally unacceptable

      I have no problem with weapons of all types, not just guns, beng kept out of the hands of crazies.

      Funding for keeping people who are dangerous to themselves and others was cut years ago.

      And the stupid claim that if one person in a family needs mental health help, then the entire family should be kept from the rest of humanity. Such claims make no sense, but it is how some fools, and some news houds, act and think.

      The problem with new gun laws is they keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Criminals can get guns because they ignore the laws.
      --
      "What do you mean its sunrise already ?!", me.

    • JimBlue wrote:

      hikerboy wrote:

      you know its funny no where in this thread has anyone suggested taking peoples guns away from them what is being suggested is trying to find ways to reduce the amount of gun violence in this country which is totally unacceptable
      I have no problem with weapons of all types, not just guns, beng kept out of the hands of crazies.

      Funding for keeping people who are dangerous to themselves and others was cut years ago.

      And the stupid claim that if one person in a family needs mental health help, then the entire family should be kept from the rest of humanity. Such claims make no sense, but it is how some fools, and some news houds, act and think.

      The problem with new gun laws is they keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Criminals can get guns because they ignore the laws.
      again, except for instant background checks and reversing the gun show exemption, no new laws are necessary. just better enforcement of the existing laws.
      its not law abiding citizens that are at issue here, its how to keep guns away from the non-law abiding citizens,as well as the mentally unstable.
      its all good

    • hikerboy wrote:

      JimBlue wrote:

      hikerboy wrote:

      you know its funny no where in this thread has anyone suggested taking peoples guns away from them what is being suggested is trying to find ways to reduce the amount of gun violence in this country which is totally unacceptable
      I have no problem with weapons of all types, not just guns, beng kept out of the hands of crazies.
      Funding for keeping people who are dangerous to themselves and others was cut years ago.

      And the stupid claim that if one person in a family needs mental health help, then the entire family should be kept from the rest of humanity. Such claims make no sense, but it is how some fools, and some news houds, act and think.

      The problem with new gun laws is they keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Criminals can get guns because they ignore the laws.
      again, except for instant background checks and reversing the gun show exemption, no new laws are necessary. just better enforcement of the existing laws.its not law abiding citizens that are at issue here, its how to keep guns away from the non-law abiding citizens,as well as the mentally unstable.

      I agree with you hikerboy.

      The problem is some anti-guns groups, including pioliticians, haven't seen it that way.
      --
      "What do you mean its sunrise already ?!", me.

    • Australia 28 million
      USA 324 million
      What difference does that make?
      I quoted per 100,000 stats.
      The bulk of our gun related deaths are suicides. A disproportionate amount amongst our farmers who are most likely to own a gun.
      Where you need to try and curb guns is the amount of handguns and heavy weaponry.
      Hunting guns you need to educate people better in safety to cut down on accidents.
      Perhaps put a 1000% tax on ammo to encourage more prudent trigger pulls and better aim (refer to earlier posts about being conservative with ammo).
      :)
      Resident Australian, proving being a grumpy old man is not just an American trait.

    • OzJacko wrote:

      Australia 28 million
      USA 324 million
      What difference does that make?
      I quoted per 100,000 stats.
      The bulk of our gun related deaths are suicides. A disproportionate amount amongst our farmers who are most likely to own a gun.
      Where you need to try and curb guns is the amount of handguns and heavy weaponry.
      Hunting guns you need to educate people better in safety to cut down on accidents.
      Perhaps put a 1000% tax on ammo to encourage more prudent trigger pulls and better aim (refer to earlier posts about being conservative with ammo).
      :)
      I'm okay with no one in Australia having a gun and that 1000% tax would work great there I bet.
      I may grow old but I'll never grow up.