Post: #26

Australia isn't exactly nuanced when it comes to women.

You can find Caucasian hotness reliably on the Gold Coast and just about nowhere else, and the guys are pretty well cut too so your game has to be solid.

The only other worthwhile watering holes are FOB asians in Sydney and Melbourne, and again your game has to be high to compete and you might as well be in an actual Asian country.

I only still live here because rural Australia is still a good place to raise kids and keep your wife traditional.

Post: #27

(10-20-2016 08:42 AM)LordMayorMuffSniff Wrote:  Australia can't afford a liberal America under Hillary- especially those 1-3 supreme court judges she gets. Their leftist propaganda just flows on to here. Things are bad enough over here with Safe Schools and Male privilege classes, legacies from Obama that are cucking our nation. Where America goes, we follow.

Feel the same way in Canada, even though we're probably a lost cause, but a global renaissance kicked off by Brexit & a Trump presidency is the only possible chance we have.

Entire Anglosphere is hinging on this, and from there the rest of Europe... but we've known this all along.

Post: #28

(10-21-2016 11:22 AM)chakalaka Wrote:  Hillary reminds me of Bart´s sister: Lisa.

https://www.google.dk/search?q=hillary+c...90DagIM%3A

No. Lisa is way too nice.

Post: #29

(10-22-2016 01:52 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  I only still live here because rural Australia is still a good place to raise kids and keep your wife traditional.

Is it? What are the gun laws like down there? Can you arm yourself to protect your family?

Post: #30

(10-23-2016 05:10 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  

(10-22-2016 01:52 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  I only still live here because rural Australia is still a good place to raise kids and keep your wife traditional.

Is it? What are the gun laws like down there? Can you arm yourself to protect your family?

Yes, you can arm yourself. Still, gun laws in rural Australia are exactly the same as in the cities (read: one of the strictest in the world), why would they be any different?

I.e. For a centrefire and rimfire longarms licence, here are the necessities: The requirement to attend and pass a firearm safety course (piss easy), be proven to have had no prior police/criminal record, not be subject to any court orders, or be denied a previous firearm licence nor had one cancelled, not to have any mental or certain medical impediments, and have a "genuine reason". You need to supply a couple of forms of ID and have them certified by an "acceptable referee".

For a handgun licence, they're as above, but the "genuine reasons" are even more stringent, and you have to supply a set of fingerprints to the licensing body (the police).

There's a separate firearm licence category for heavier weapons (RPG's, heavy machine guns, etc.), but haven't checked its vital stats. I believe you can cram the total number of holders into a bus stop anyway.

Additionally, there are pretty strict laws on firearm storage (must be kept in a locked container, which has to be bolted to the wall/floor if under 150kg, the whole thing must be rigged to an alarm system if over 12 weapons are stored). Ammunition mustn't be stored in the same compartment, and your storage premises (IIRC) are subject to police visits, (I'm about to find out ).

A permit to acquire form must be filled out and approved for every firearm you obtain. For your first weapon, it'll take 28 days.

There are pretty strict requirements on the private sale, and carriage or transport of firearms. All firearm sales between private people need to go through a licensed dealer, i.e. a gun shop. The idea of concealed/open carry legislation would be laughed out of Parliament before it even got there.

These all vary by state, but not by much. What I wrote is applicable to mine, Victoria.

Mind you, most of these rulings were introduced by our Liberal* Goverment, generally after the shootings at Port Arthur and Monash University. It's been pretty politically kosher here to be anti-gun without actually banning them outright. Until shortly after I was born, it was still possible to buy air rifles and .22 LR ammo at Kmart.

*That is, our main centre-right party.

Post: #31

Pauline is the closest thing we have to the Trumpening.

A women? I know, no blokes have the balls to step up.

Even though she sounds like she is going to cry at any moment, this little redhead has the balls, and the tenacity under leftist fire (been jailed/slandered/threatened vilified for decades)

Post: #32

(10-23-2016 07:18 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  Pauline is the closest thing we have to the Trumpening.

A women? I know, no blokes have the balls to step up.

Even though she sounds like she is going to cry at any moment, this little redhead has the balls, and the tenacity under leftist fire (been jailed/slandered/threatened vilified for decades)

Pauline Hanson is the closest thing by default. She's not particularly original, intelligent or charismatic, but she is a personality with an unbreakable association with an idea. An idea who's time has come.

I don't expect her to actually be Australias trump - I think the movement might recrystallise around another figure, perhaps Tony Abbott or Cory Bernardi. Regardless of who leads it, we're starting to see the same rumblings of discontent that are popping up elsewhere in the anglosphere. About fucking time, I say.

Post: #33

I'll be taking the 9th off here to witness the Trumpening. Sydney members holla!

Post: #34

Brisbane beer tnite pm me

Post: #35

(10-23-2016 05:10 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  

(10-22-2016 01:52 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  I only still live here because rural Australia is still a good place to raise kids and keep your wife traditional.

Is it? What are the gun laws like down there? Can you arm yourself to protect your family?

JWLZG has a good explanation.

The bottom line on all firearm use for self defence in Australia is this. It is explicitly illegal to own a gun for the specific purpose of defending yourself.
It is not necessarily illegal to use a gun to defend yourself (having acquired it for other reasons) if you are faced with a reasonably deadly threat HOWEVER you will have a hell of a time explaining to the judge how under deadly threat you managed to get to your gun-safe, get out your gun, access the separate locked container for your ammunition, load the gun and use it in your defence.

There have been certain instances that qualified. During a home invasion (in WA I think) an old couple locked themselves in their bedroom and got their shotgun, which was legally stored in said bedroom while the home invaders were attempting to gain entry to the room. According to the old couple the men entered the room with weapons in hand and ignored all warnings to leave. Upon one of them reaching for the gun the old man fired it and killed the intruder. The wording of the article was that "the public prosecutor declined to charge the old man with a criminal offence".

Interpretation. The old guy kept a loaded shotgun under the bed. He heard a bump in the night and armed himself quickly. He locked bedroom door. He killed one of the home invaders as they forced their way into the room then fell back on a pre-prepared story that circumvented his real life transgressions against our gun laws and barely escaped criminal conviction.

The PP declined to press charges (at that moment though maybe reconsidered after attention faded) because it would be political poison to dump an old man in jail for defending his wife from the scum of the earth the only way he was able.

If you're a strapping young man then forget about it. You'd be breaking rocks by the end of the week. Maddening since supermodel Miranda Kerr's bodyguard at her Australian mansion just drilled a home invader and the invader was charged with criminal trespass and weapons charges. Seems guns are just fine for self defence if you're rich and famous enough to hire some goon, who laughably would have no such rights himself as soon as he was off the clock.

Post: #36

(10-28-2016 04:09 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  There have been certain instances that qualified. During a home invasion (in WA I think) an old couple locked themselves in their bedroom and got their shotgun, which was legally stored in said bedroom while the home invaders were attempting to gain entry to the room. According to the old couple the men entered the room with weapons in hand and ignored all warnings to leave. Upon one of them reaching for the gun the old man fired it and killed the intruder. The wording of the article was that "the public prosecutor declined to charge the old man with a criminal offence".

I remember that one. That was the Valenti case.

Valenti was 77 years old and had an incapacitated wife at home. They were in a semi-rural property -- a small winery. At a guess he probably had a licence for a shotgun to keep the fucking crows off his grapes. He didn't actually kill either of them, he wounded the older bastard - shot him in the stomach, though I'm guessing it must've been just a couple of pellets that hit him because I doubt the arsehole would've survived if he took a full burst in the guts from a shotgun at point-blank range.

In that respect the old man was very, very lucky: if he had killed one of them I think he might well have been charged anyway. When a shithead does something like this and dies, invariably said shithead's extended family comes flooding in like a flock of seagulls on a chip screaming for "justice" (usually despite being absent from said shithead's life for the previous ten or fifteen years).

Also, it wasn't the local public prosecutor who dropped the charge, it was the police themselves who declined to charge him at all. They probably got the DPP's advice to begin with, but the decision was theirs. As you say, there would've been big PR problems if they had charged him. As soon as the story broke in Perth most everyone was saying "There's no way the cops are going to charge someone like that in those circumstances, and if they did there's not a fucking jury in Perth that would convict him." Certainly looked like the cops agreed with that.

One of the news reports from the time:

Quote:Relief at no charges for shooting 23rd February 2009, 13:00 WST The 77-year-old man who shot an alleged intruder in Herne Hill last week has expressed relief that police have found he acted lawfully in shooting the man and will not be charged. Speaking through his granddaughter Belinda Coniglio, Eugenio Valenti said his peace had been disrupted and he was deeply traumatised by the events. “He is obviously very relieved at the news… it shows the police have looked at the facts of what happened and he acted in self defence so he is very relieved at that,” Ms Coniglio said. “I think it sends a strong message that we need to be safe in our own homes.” Ms Coniglio said there were no words to describe what her grandfather was feeling. She said the family had received “phenomenal support from the public” and they wanted to thank everyone for their messages. “As you can understand it has been a very difficult and very traumatic time on the family and in particular my grandfather and we just want to thank everyone for their support of him and the family,” Ms Coniglio said. This morning police said Mr Valenti's actions were not unlawful when his firearm was discharged during a struggle. East Metro inspector Bill Munnee said Mr Valenti was "entirely justified" in defending himself and his bedridden wife at their home in Herne Hill. "He will not be charged," Inspector Munnee said. Inspector Munnee said the two alleged offenders confirmed Mr Valenti's version of events. Mr Valenti shot the man after he allegedly forced his way into a locked bedroom, where Mr Valenti had taken refuge with his incapacitated wife, Maria. The elderly couple were asleep when the men broke into their winery, Vino Italia, in Campersic Road, through a back door about 9.40pm on Wednesday. Police have charged two men, aged 18 and 35, over the break-in.

Note that statement from the cop - very, very rare for police to say something like that in a case like this. In the hyperlink you can also see that the inspector, Bill Munnee, also said "it wasn't like he did a pop shot while they ran away or before they came in." That's the cardinal mistake that most farmers make when some dickhead comes onto their property: they fire a warning shot before the guy's at close range or they fire a (literal) parting shot to wing the fucker as he runs. Either circumstance is arguable as not being self-defence.

At the time self-defence when it came to being attacked in your own home was somewhat easier to establish: you didn't have to establish that the force used was proportionate to the assault offered (fist vs fist, fence picket vs fence picket), you were entitled to use such force as necessary to stop the attack. But around the time of the Valenti case (not caused by it) it was standardised down to, essentially, you believing that it was necessary (on reasonable grounds) to fire and that you believe it was a reasonable response in all the circumstances.

This is why defending yourself with a gun as a young bloke in your home is going to be at best debatable: you can run, or push back, or whatever. Valenti demonstrably couldn't, and the two fuckheads had demonstrated they weren't going to stop coming until he fired. But as said there's not a jury in the world that would've likely convicted him, even if he had killed the bastard.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #37

^ Thanks. I think I must have gotten the "friend of a friend" version.

So yeah. I operate on a "better judged by twelve than carried by six" principle, but merely living out in the sticks drops my odds of a home invasion off the chart, particularly because I'm not exactly known locally to be rolling in dough.

Best defence out here is a large, alert dog(s) that roams during the day and sleeps inside at night. The reason being that nobody is shutting that dog down without giving you justification to use the gun, and the dog buys you the time you need to get armed.

Post: #38

Leonard D Neubache,

I am aware of Australia's strict gun laws and 1996 confiscation program. While I wasn't aware of all the details and politics behind it, my main point was that I wanted to know how you believe "rural Australia is still a good place to raise kids and keep your wife traditional" when you're not even allowed to physically protect your family by arming yourself. When I have a family, that would be one of my #1 concerns.

I live in NYC, and I don't even think I would raise a family here (or anywhere in NY state) due to the strict gun laws. And this is coming from a guy (me) who has never shot a gun, but understands he will need to buy guns and learn to shoot if he wants to start a family and be able to protect them.

Do you agree, or am I giving the issue too much importance?

Post: #39

(10-29-2016 06:24 AM)Rob Banks Wrote:  Leonard D Neubache,

I am aware of Australia's strict gun laws and 1996 confiscation program. While I wasn't aware of all the details and politics behind it, my main point was that I wanted to know how you believe "rural Australia is still a good place to raise kids and keep your wife traditional" when you're not even allowed to physically protect your family by arming yourself. When I have a family, that would be one of my #1 concerns.

I live in NYC, and I don't even think I would raise a family here (or anywhere in NY state) due to the strict gun laws. And this is coming from a guy (me) who has never shot a gun, but understands he will need to buy guns and learn to shoot if he wants to start a family and be able to protect them.

Do you agree, or am I giving the issue too much importance?

Location is the most relevant factor in determining your safety. Being armed to the teeth in Iraq is less safe than being unarmed in a monastery in the Swiss alps. Who do you think is more safe. Me or Mr AR15 living at a cartel hotspot on the southern border of Arizona?

Consider that my measly collection of handguns, bolt action rifles and break action shotguns along with my good proficiency in the use of same puts me literally among the top 1% of my nation in that regard.

Between a good pair of dogs and Glock 21 I feel safer here than anywhere I'd chance to live in the US. I might not be able to carry that gun with me all day every day but out here my chances are still better than most odds you'll get in America, and if things get considerably worse then I'm in a perfect location to start ignoring such laws as unreasonably endanger me and my family.

That's not to say I'd never live in America, just that I'd be statistically less safe if I did, unrestrictive gun laws or not.

Post: #40

(10-29-2016 08:19 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(10-29-2016 06:24 AM)Rob Banks Wrote:  Leonard D Neubache,

I am aware of Australia's strict gun laws and 1996 confiscation program. While I wasn't aware of all the details and politics behind it, my main point was that I wanted to know how you believe "rural Australia is still a good place to raise kids and keep your wife traditional" when you're not even allowed to physically protect your family by arming yourself. When I have a family, that would be one of my #1 concerns.

I live in NYC, and I don't even think I would raise a family here (or anywhere in NY state) due to the strict gun laws. And this is coming from a guy (me) who has never shot a gun, but understands he will need to buy guns and learn to shoot if he wants to start a family and be able to protect them.

Do you agree, or am I giving the issue too much importance?

Location is the most relevant factor in determining your safety. Being armed to the teeth in Iraq is less safe than being unarmed in a monastery in the Swiss alps. Who do you think is more safe. Me or Mr AR15 living at a cartel hotspot on the southern border of Arizona?

Consider that my measly collection of handguns, bolt action rifles and break action shotguns along with my good proficiency in the use of same puts me literally among the top 1% of my nation in that regard.

Between a good pair of dogs and Glock 21 I feel safer here than anywhere I'd chance to live in the US. I might not be able to carry that gun with me all day every day but out here my chances are still better than most odds you'll get in America, and if things get considerably worse then I'm in a perfect location to start ignoring such laws as unreasonably endanger me and my family.

That's not to say I'd never live in America, just that I'd be statistically less safe if I did, unrestrictive gun laws or not.

I personally would rather live in a dangerous neighborhood (maybe not Iraq, but a bad neighborhood in the US) and be armed than live in an extremely safe neighborhood in a country that bans guns. The reason is that in the former scenario, my odds of being shot might be higher, but at least my life is in my own hands. In the latter scenario, the reason you're safe is because other men with (military and police) keep the neighborhood safe and keep invaders out of the country. If there was ever a situation where invaders took over, or there was a civil war, you would be at the mercy of whoever in your area was armed. I realize those are very unlikely scenarios in Australia. It's just that I would rather have my life in my own hands than rely solely on others for protection (key word: solely).

Post: #41

^ In a scenario like that your life is not in your hands, nor is it on the mean streets just because you have a gun.

In the case of a serious war there will be millions of AR15s lying next to men dead of disease, starvation, dehydration, no meds etc. Some will become the worst kind of bandits just to get by, because they think their life expectancy begins and ends with a gun and they have no real understanding of what it takes to survive in this world without that great big machine keeping you warm, safe, fed and clothed.

Genuinely survivable people see a gun as only one tool of many, and not the most important one at that. Location, fitness and skills are the most relevant factors. Contacts. Supplies. All play a part. Carrying a gun 100% of the time is a dispensable luxury if you have the other bases covered.

Post: #42

(10-30-2016 08:21 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  I personally would rather live in a dangerous neighborhood (maybe not Iraq, but a bad neighborhood in the US) and be armed than live in an extremely safe neighborhood in a country that bans guns. The reason is that in the former scenario, my odds of being shot might be higher, but at least my life is in my own hands. In the latter scenario, the reason you're safe is because other men with (military and police) keep the neighborhood safe and keep invaders out of the country. If there was ever a situation where invaders took over, or there was a civil war, you would be at the mercy of whoever in your area was armed. I realize those are very unlikely scenarios in Australia. It's just that I would rather have my life in my own hands than rely solely on others for protection (key word: solely).

I think you agree that a complete ban on guns is safer, but that it will limit your ability to protect yourself against invaders or the state.

It's true that an unarmed society is prone to attack from invaders, but Australia is unique in that it is an island country, sharing no borders with anyone. Therefore any invasion that occurs would be at a military scale, so it's already a bigger threat than I can reasonably protect against with my own weapons.

The threat from the state is more credible, but I think due to the culture of mistrust and accountability (as well as less power) for politicians here, it makes the possibility of being physically being held hostage by the state less likely, or easier to see developing. Australia is such a nanny state of rules and regulations, that the government has to jump through so many hoops to get things done. Any massive moves to control the population will be met by anger by the people, before any real violence will happen.

I agree that gun control in america would not work, mostly due to culture of the government and the people. As well as having borders that are harder to patrol.

Post: #43

(10-31-2016 12:59 AM)glugger Wrote:  I think you agree that a complete ban on guns is safer,...

Absolutely not. You could not be more wrong. Countless studies have shown that when strict gun control measures are enacted in cities like Chicago, the violent crime rate actually goes up (or if it goes down, it is because it has gone down nationally by a larger percentage). In more conservative areas where most people have guns, robbery and burglary are far less common because no one is going to burglarize a house if they know the people living there are armed.

Have you noticed that mass shooters always pick gun-free zones (such as schools or movie theaters) to commit their heinous crimes? What do you think would happen if a would-be mass shooter walked into, say, a police precinct and tried to take out as many cops as possible. Why do you think Black Lives Matter thugs have not tried something like that?

(10-31-2016 12:59 AM)glugger Wrote:  ...but that it will limit your ability to protect yourself against invaders or the state. It's true that an unarmed society is prone to attack from invaders, but Australia is unique in that it is an island country, sharing no borders with anyone. Therefore any invasion that occurs would be at a military scale, so it's already a bigger threat than I can reasonably protect against with my own weapons.

Borders or not, an invasion could still happen. Even in a country like the US, which shares a land border with 2 countries, any serious military invasion, whether by ground or air, would be too powerful for any single armed citizen to contain by himself. The idea the US Founding Fathers had was that if there was an invasion, the armed citizens would come together to fight the invaders, not that any armed citizen would singlehandedly stop anyone.

Remember, the Founding Fathers did not believe in the concept of a standing army, so any potential invaders would have to be fought off by armed citizen militias. In fact, the American Revolutionary War was won by armed citizen militias, not a professional army.

(10-31-2016 12:59 AM)glugger Wrote:  The threat from the state is more credible, but I think due to the culture of mistrust and accountability (as well as less power) for politicians here, it makes the possibility of being physically being held hostage by the state less likely, or easier to see developing. Australia is such a nanny state of rules and regulations, that the government has to jump through so many hoops to get things done. Any massive moves to control the population will be met by anger by the people, before any real violence will happen.

While the US Founding Fathers did specify that one of the reasons citizens need to me armed is to potentially fight off a tyrannical government, I will concede that with today's highly-advanced military weaponry, it would be a lot tougher for citizens of a country like the US to actually fight back against their government. However, it is still better to be armed than not. If the government ever did anything really egregious (such as attempt to pull an Australia and confiscate guns, like Hillary Clinton wants to do), the citizens could always have an armed protest at the capital and hopefully the government would back down.

If close to 100 million armed American citizens ever came together to take down the government (something I am not in any way advocating), it is very possible that the government would have to nuke its own people in order to avoid defeat, which is something they might not be willing to do.

(10-31-2016 12:59 AM)glugger Wrote:  I agree that gun control in america would not work, mostly due to culture of the government and the people. As well as having borders that are harder to patrol.

It doesn't work anywhere, unless by "work" you mean help the elites maintain control of an increasingly helpless populace.

Post: #44

I'm not for gun control either. Our murder and suicide rates have not dropped in the aftermath of our gun ban. Less shootings, more stabbings. Less suicide by gun and more by rope or razor. Any criminal that wants a gun can get one, and I myself could easily get access to "military" grade weapons if I wanted to go down that route.

Mass shootings dropped, but that only means you don't get a big news story every now and then. Deaths are deaths, and they didn't track any differently after the ban than they did before it.

So, no. Not safer. Also, not demonstrably less safe. Regardless, demonstrably less free. The reality though is that while Australia might have a slightly more frontier feel than England, we're still a (convict) colony nation and there's simply not enough red blood in us as a people to act as studs rather than veal.