Nice Conversation I had with an Australian Fellow about guns

Australian - Why do you carry a gun with you? Are you paranoid? Your country has more crime because of guns.

Me - I carry a gun because it is my right to do so. It is my protection as well as protection for those around me. And no...I'm not paranoid...I am prepared

Australian - Its proven that the more guns you have, the more violence there is. Your country is the perfect example of this.

Me - Well....we could be like the UK and ban all guns and have the crime rate actually go up because no one has the ability to defend themselves. Hitler tried gun control and look what happened there. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns

Australian - If you still don't get it Yanke look at statistics of armed robberies in the US verse the UK if that still doesn't prove my point then I look forward to the day that you red neck hicks have inbred and shot yourselves out of existence.

Me - So....you are combining LAW ABIDING CITIZENS that have firearms with criminals to prove your point....you just lost this argument based on that alone....Since the UK has banned guns....why WOULD some of them need them to commit "armed robberies"? Also look at the VAST population difference go to percentages. You are generalizing. I open carry my pistol all the time and not one time has ANYONE ever wanted to "take a shot at me" just because I am carrying a firearm. I was MORE of a target before I started carrying my pistol. Again...Law Abiding Citizens vs (for lack of a better term) Bad Guys.

Australian - Exactly my point they are law abiding until the day they go postal! Think we're going to have to agree to disagree dude no ones going to win this argument, I'm just happy I live here where it's safe in Australia and you can wear you're cow boy boots and gun about in the States.

Me - HAHA.....I don't wear cowboy boots...I just have jeans, T-Shirt and regular shoes.....but you can go back to riding kangaroos though

Australian - Hey, leave my kangaroo alone. So my American friend, do you still support you're countries relaxed gun laws after a previously "law abiding citizen" used legally obtained guns and ammunition to murder twelve innocent people in a movie theater?

Me - Yes I do.....I support my right to keep and bear arms. I don't support the person that feels that they need to murder and hurt someone. The terrorists that crashed the planes into the World Trade Center were "law abiding citizens" until they took over the planes. It is one thing to be an actual law abiding citizen.... It is another to be "law abiding" citizen with intent to do harm later.

Australian - So how in the name of public safety do you differentiate between the two?

Me - That is the reason for the second amendment rights if the actual law abiding citizens see something going in (like what happened in that theater) they can act upon it. Remember, when seconds count, cops are only minutes away

Australian - So you're answer to the issue is that every member of you're country should carry a firearm at all time to carry out vigilante justice at their own discretion? Seems like a bad idea by my logic. My heart bleeds for the innocent live lost in that theater and for the people that will continue to lose their lives at the hands of you're second amendment. After all the second amendment was first introduced in 1791 (I realize it was adjusted in the past couple of years) and was really designed to allow the American people protect the sovereignty of you're country, it's of little to no relevance now. What happened in that movie theater is not an isolated case in America's modern history how many more massacres are enough to make people re think the you're countries stance on gun control and the second amendment?

Me - So....basically, what you are saying is that you would rather run away like a coward and let people die, than be the one person with a handgun (Because it is your right to have one) and save lives and most likely yourself? Who said anything about "vigilante justice"? That is a bit over dramatized don't you think? I would rather defend myself and those around me than to let people die. But again.....that is just me

This Convo is still ongoing...lol

Ask him why the crime rate is so high per population in Australia than America? Or how their own government can't explain why home invasion rates went up since gun bans.

Should have answered his first question with: I like to shoot escaped prisoners

Conversation done.

I recall that "Down Under" was originally populated by criminals that England didn't want on the Bristish Isles. Any wonder they can't be trusted with guns?

Howdy Pard!
An interesting conversation. And I noted that your Aussie amigo likes to use insult rather than logic in making his points. It is a give-away sign that he hasn't relied on reason, but rationalization. In other words, he is a credit to his PROGRAMMING!

I am hugely aware of how neuro-linguistic programming is used in this country to imbed messages into the mind of folks who fail to recognize they are actually being programmed. You see it all the time, but they are blissfully unaware of that programming. It is used by politicians, political parties, religious outfits, and government agencies. Media uses it too, often with alarming effectiveness. But that's actually a whole topic unto itself.

It should be noted that there are nations around the world where guns are in high proliferation; such as Switzerland, where every adult male is expected to own a gun and be prepared to defend his homeland; a titular member of their military. One reason Hitler avoided Switzerland was because every last person in Switzerland was armed and would have resisted the Nazi advance into that country at an alarming cost to German forces.

Along with that, it may also be noted that some nations utterly prohibit firearms; which does not actually produce better crime statistics. We might consider a recent mass shooting in Sweden for one example.

There are nations that have more guns per capita, with far less crime than the U.S. per capita.
There are nations that have more guns per capita, with more crime than the U.S. per capita.
There are nations that have fewer guns, per capita, with far less crime than the U.S. per capita.
Thene there are nations that have fewer guns, per capita, with far more crime than the U.S. per capita.
There are no nations with total gun bans that are free of crime, violence, murder, etc.

What we might take from the above 5 scenarios is that guns is only a part of the whole issue.
There are obviously other issues affecting crime statistics than merely whether guns are permitted or not.
I will not speculate here on what those issues are, but it is evident at face value that guns ain't the issue in toto, and to believe otherwise is simplistic and nonsensical.
That position is not supported by logical analysis. Yet, it is the easiest factor to pounce upon for those who either can't, or won't, bother themselves to consider the wider picture as viewed through anthropology, sociology, psychology, or any other -ology that ought reasonably be brought to bear in the examination of the subject.
Proof of this lies in the fact that on 911, massive damage was done, hundreds killed, and not a single gun fired.
Oh, but that would require a level of analysis that the simple cannot bother as a challenge to their programmed paradigm.

In closing, the cities of Los Angeles, Chicago and the District of Columbia all had, or presently have, outright gun bans.
Now, if you'll permit speculation.... what are the most violent cities in America?

My sentiment is this;
There are complex issues that must be examined, but those who have a myopic view will seize upon an incident such as took place in Aurora to justify their programming.
Should they consider anything other than the most simplistic answer, odds are just too overwhelming they'd suffer a system crash when their logic circuits fail.

Blessings,
M-Taliesin

Ask him why he thinks a simple law would stop a lunatic like this latest one? Ask him if guns were illegal, if he thinks this lunatic couldn't have gotten some? Ask him if theoretically he couldn't have, aren't there other options to kill a lot of people, didn't he build a bomb? Should all flammable material be outlawed too? What about cars? Couldn't he have used his car to run over some people? Should we outlaw cars? Or what about knives? Couldn't he have stabbed a few people? Should we outlaw all knives? Couldn't he have simply blocked the doors and threw a few molotov cocktails into the theater and burn it down with everyone inside? Should we outlaw bottles, gas and lighters?

The problem aren't the tools, the problem is people and why no one noticed this guy going of the rails, especially since his mother knew right away it must have been her son when news reporters called her and she didn't even know what had happened or heard from authorities yet.. That's where the real problem lies.

Oh another one you could ask him is how come the Swiss don't have the same problem and yet they have the 3rd most guns among the public per capita in the world?!?


Most of all ask him if he is even capable of rational thought otherwise you're just wasting your time.

hazek said:

Most of all ask him if he is even capable of rational thought otherwise you're just wasting your time.

Click to expand...

Howdy Hazek!
I think the answer to that question is self evident. He is programmed, and only running the program. He hasn't actually thought things through on his own. I am uncertain whether he is capable of doing so.

Blessings,
M-Taliesin

Howdy!
I don't want to hijack the thread here, but I also thought some other facts ought to be lobbed into the fray!

Where guns are prohibited, mass shootings tend to happen.
Hello???

School shootings with mass casualities has happened both here and abroad.
Schools prohibit guns anywhere near their facilities.
So only the bad guys show up with guns, confident they'll encounter no resistance.
Innocent folks are entirely unable to mount a defense because they have no defensive weapons.

Church shootings happen frequently, because churches traditionally are gun free locations.
That has changed in recent years, but again, a real bad individual can shoot up a lot of victims real quick with limited resistance.

Post offices across America are gun free zones.
How convenient for the bad guy who wants to rack up a large score on victims when they cannot defend themselves.
It is the origin of the concept of "Going Postal".
Where guns are prohibited, nobody can defend agains the killer who uses a gun to murder folks!

The Fort Hood massacre was made possible because guns are prohibited on military bases. (Ironic, ain't it?)
So nobody could return fire when a whack job decided to open fire on unarmed victims unable to defend themselves.
And he knew it.
All the nut jobs know it.

Further evidence?
You won't see shooting sprees... or even the attempt... on locations where guns are in proliferation.
Bad guys won't assault a police station, because they know they'll be cut down in real short order.

Bad guys won't assault a location where armed security is at the location,
because they know they'll be taken out real quick before they can rack up an impressive number of kills.

Bad guys don't attack gun shops, because they know the folks working there will return fire.

Are we seeing a pattern here?

Take out guns, and only bad guys have them.
And victims are now prepared to be led like lambs to the slaughter.

There's the bottom line, my friend.
And as I made clear earlier....
The only way to address these problems is to make crime too dangerous an occupation for bad guys.

Blessings,
M-Taliesin

Sure doesn't look like this guy needed access to legal guns to cause this much damage:

...Holmes spent $15,000 on weapons and ammunition over the past several months... A search of Holmes’ apartment in Aurora revealed 30 improvised hand grenades and several containers filled with gunpowder and gasoline, said the official.

Click to expand...

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...orado-victims-as-police-search-suspect-s-home


That much money would have been enough to buy a weapon on the black market plus he had BOMBS ffs.. he didn't need guns. Actually, I'll go even as far as to say that because he had access to guns maybe less people died then there would have if he couldn't get guns and was left with just bombs.

Well....apparently, he has stopped talking to me because he feels I've called him a coward. So ends that convo.

Its really worthless to argue with these kind of people. I have coworkers of the same mentality. People who argue like this are trolls or indoctrinated. They are programmed to think a certain way.

A uk friend of mine had his pistol destroyed he said he got about $50 us for it. It cost him about $800 us. He asked me what he should by next. I said a plane ticket to Colorado and become a us citizen. He declined so I told him to buy a butter knife but be sure to register it. He laughed saying he hates his government. A Australin friend watched family heirlooms get destroyed by his government. Now that I think about it I have not seen him come online since then.

Wolfstanus said:

Its really worthless to argue with these kind of people. .

Click to expand...

Another bullet-point for non-US anti-gunners:

"what does your country know about weapons, they don't have the bomb!"

and if the person is french or english, (nuclear power) and says "yes we do"

I answer back " and how many people have your country killed with your A-bombs? ... because, hey, we'll nuke your butt if we have half a mind to ... so don't piss off the US, we are more than happy to use our A-bombs"

OH yeah.....I also pointed this out to him too. I don't think it helped any

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

Torquemaster69 said:

OH yeah.....I also pointed this out to him too. I don't think it helped any

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

Click to expand...

Howdy Pardner!
That's the trouble with folks who are running on their programming rather than reason.
Facts do not matter. Not if it conflicts with their program.
So who entered the programming to start with?
Perhaps their schools, or government, or media.
Point remains; it is hard to argue with somebody who will retreat to their programming rather than consider facts.

BTW, that's a really handy link you provided. Well done there!

Blessings,
M-Taliesin

Here's a link to some information you can use.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/07/mailvox-aussie-logic.html

And, hot of the presses...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html