sc94597 said:
richardhutnik said:
sc94597 said:
betacon said:
sc94597 said:
betacon said:
to get a knife licence in Australia,
|
Holy crap, one needs a license to own (or carry?) a knife in Australia? It does tell me something, but not what it told you.
|
Yes you can't cary even a pocketknife into public and to purchase a knife you need a license which you still can't bring into a public area, yes this is over the top "nanny state" both between Australia and America there's middle ground .
|
The problem is that there is always a "middle ground" It reminds me of Zeno's paradox and how one might seemingly never reach their destination if they keep moving half the distance they moved before, but essentially the sum of the limit of each adds up to a finite number. So with each "compromise" we get closer and closer to that nanny state, and it only remains a nanny state when it's benevolent, otherwise it turns totalitarian. No thank you! I value freedom very much, and invidual liberties are very important for living a "good life" albeit not necessarily a totally safe one. However; these idealisms always lead to dissapointment and often ruin (substantiated by history.) Hence, when it comes to individual liberties there is no compromise which deals with the state's involvement. Compromise must be within the society, which is a separate and distinct entity from the state and which has a different origin and different values. The state is meant to protect our liberties as long as they don't intrude upon the liberties and freedoms of others. Hence, lawful citizens should be able to own what they want. There ARE other solutions, and it is clear with the diversity found among the various states in the U.S, in which many have many guns but few homicides.
|
The thing about the "nanny state" argument is that if you live in a society where the citizens can't be trusted to govern themselves voluntarily, and manage to prevent mentally unstable people from getting guns, then the state will have to increasingly babysit the citizens and act like a nanny, for their safety. Complaining about a "nanny state" and trying to win an argument, doesn't address people's concerns, and does nothing to reduce the shootings, or getting people concerned about them.
Also, I have to ask about the "gun-free school" initiative, and if people here thimnk that parents want to send their kids to schools where there are armed individuals about, and kids can bring their own guns to school.
|
Yet how can one trust the state when states are much more prone to mass-murder than citizens, as substantiated by history? (Last century 170 million people died by states)
I'm not saying give kids guns, as that was a mistake in our history, even though it was a time when people were far less "worried" about them. However; parents have no choice when kids go to supermarkets or playgrounds or anywhere and there are people concealed carrying, why should they have a choice if the students are with teachers who conceal carry, who are probably the most trustworthy people when it comes to guns.
|
Are you going to require teachers carry their own guns with them to school? If they don't have one, are you going to add the costs of a gun and ammo to the other expenses they have? Is a prerequisit that teachers MUST have guns before they go? And if there are substitutes, do they need to carry them also?
And the point of "gun free schools" which is to be blamed for this mess by the NRA, is that it was to keep guns out of the hands of students.
And here is the NRA's approach to guns in schools:
http://wtvr.com/2012/12/21/bonus-read-nras-complete-statement-on-conn-school-shooting/
It looks like the NRA coming up with a solution that would be implemented and funded with federal grants. Idea of the NRA training people, and armed individuals patrolling the playgrounds, looks like the direction they have. So, you up for armed individuals connected with the NRA patrolling the playgrounds, perhaps getting federal funding to do so?
