Should Firearm/Weapons Deals Be Disallowed?

gimli on 08/08/2017 - 20:58
Last edited 27/05/2018 - 19:51 by 1 other user

Ozbargain tries to be a family friendly community/site. I know there are many deals which sometimes cross the boundary. (e.g. alcohol)
But i think the wider community consensus (not ozbargain but australia) is that firearms should be restricted. I don't think ozbargain should be promoting firearms

I know smoking advertising is restricted so there are no cigarette deals but if ozbargain started having such deals I would probably leave and troll elsewhere. The gun deals do me make consider this?

Just wondering what the community feeling about these gun deals are?

IMO. Gun deals will eventually cause negative public attention for ozbargain. So if I was the site owner I would disallow gun deals.

EDIT: grammar (see comments lol)

Mod (27/5/18): Due to a multitude of comments, reports and attacks, as well as feedback in this poll and in other deals, firearm deals are no longer permitted to be posted. Comment

Poll Options

  • 881
    Gun deals should be banned
  • 711
    Gun deals should be allowed
Site Discussion

Comments

        • fruitbat on 09/08/2017 - 08:16

          @Gimli: The you had better not watch movies other than those PG's.

        • [Deactivated] on 09/08/2017 - 09:10
          +1

          [@Gimli]@rompastompa: in this case I think it would be better to auto filter gun deals, but allow people to white list guns if they do want to look for gun deals

        • Slippery Fish on 09/08/2017 - 10:18
          +4

          @Gimli: people hurt people not guns or deals about them, also to purchase these deals people would require proper lisences and such and purchases are recorded ND limited, you couldn't buy 5 because it's a good price.

          At the end of the day there are more dangerous things people can easily get. Should we ban deals on knives? I personally collect them, I like having them and explaining about them to friends.

          At the end of the day if you don't like a deal just don't click it, that simple. Censorship is never the answer, education and familiarisation is imo.

        • geech on 09/08/2017 - 10:38
          +7

          @Kangal:

          If the primary purpose of a gun is to kill another person then we had better spend some time educating the 800,000 odd registered firearms owners that they're using them incorrectly

        • Kangal on 09/08/2017 - 11:06

          @geech:
          Guns primarily purpose is to kill another person.

          Sarcasm aside, it is possible to own a gun and not kill/harm someone.
          Sarcasm on, I think instead of educating the owners about what it was designed to do, we need to educate the government.

        • srnoz on 09/08/2017 - 11:24
          -4

          @Kangal:
          Spot on! Every Sentence!! Wish I had more +votes!!!

        • Kangal on 09/08/2017 - 11:36
          -1

          @srnoz:
          Cheers!!
          I'm getting down voted to oblivion by a handful of members though : (

          (where's jv when you need him to take the brunt of the neg votes?!?!)

        • Domingo on 09/08/2017 - 11:47
          +14

          @Kangal:

          The primary purpose of a gun is to kill another person.

          It's terribly biased, ridiculous comments like this that make open conversations about topics like guns so difficult to have.

          I don't know how I feel about guns being advertised on OzBargain, but I can totally understand why people get up in arms over this kind of comment.

          Shooting is an Olympic sport. Are you suggesting that all of the people competing in those events are really murderers doing it wrong? And farmers who use guns for pest control? And licensed gun owners who use their guns for target shooting or hunting?

          I can't find it right now, but there is research by the Australian Institute of Criminology showing that the majority of firearm homicides in Australia are committed by unlicensed people using unregistered firearms.

        • [Deactivated] on 09/08/2017 - 12:35
          +3

          @Gimli: "i can filter deals. but everyone else who shouldn't have a gun won't necessarily filter them"

          I am really fascinated by this modern puritanical mindset.

        • Kangal on 09/08/2017 - 14:33
          -2

          @Domingo:
          Think what you may, be the fact does not change.
          A gun's primary purpose is to kill another purpose.

          Just like how a car's primary purpose is to transport people.
          Yet, we have drag, drift, nascar sports.
          They have modified the car for another purpose.

          The analogy of Olympic Shooting is flawed.
          They are using an item, and modified it for a different purpose.
          Do you think Olympic Shooters walk around Woolies with their rifle?
          Do you think Olympic Shooters scour the internet, especially OzBargain, to upgrade their guns on a budget?
          …see where I'm getting at?
          These flawed analogies do nothing for the topic at hand, and are used to distract and derail the topic for the purpose of pushing biased ideals forward.

        • resisting the urge on 09/08/2017 - 15:05
          +1

          @Slippery Fish: Indeed censorship is not the answer, ever.

          But as much as it feels like it, banning guns is nothing to do with censorship. You can still read about guns, discuss them and follow the technology and indeed the industry to your heart's content. In fact, you can walk about in the street telling people about them (as long as you don't do it in a threatening manner).

          But if people were buying semi-automatic knives, making them accessible (even if by accident or otherwise) to minors, psychopaths and others who might not be trusted to tote them around, things may be very different as they are for gun-enthusiasts. That is why cross-bows are restricted, after all they cut and/or kill using two blades, so you could say they are a knife (as well as a separate mechanism for projecting it.

        • Slippery Fish on 09/08/2017 - 15:24

          @zerovelocity: I believe you missed my point re censorship, I was saying to restrict deals so as to stop (the bad minority and stupid) from buying them is censorship which isn't the answer. They already have measures in the industry to stop those people, and if we are honest people don't buy 5 washing machines because they are $100 off, same for equally expensive items.

          Edit: maybe I missed your point also on reread haha :) I'll respond after work.

        • Domingo on 09/08/2017 - 15:26
          +4

          @Kangal:

          A gun's primary purpose is to kill another purpose.

          I grieve for the purposes that have been killed.

          Just because you keep saying something doesn't make it true. A gun is a piece of equipment. Much like a knife. They can be used in a range of different ways and unfortunately some people use them in the wrong way.

          Just like how a car's primary purpose is to transport people.

          You have some strange ideas. Cars are perfectly well suited to transporting goods.

          Do you think Olympic Shooters walk around Woolies with their rifle?

          Who said anything about walking around Woolies with a rifle? I'm talking about people legally purchasing a piece of equipment to conduct a legal activity like participating in a sporting contest or pest control or hunting.

          Do you think Olympic Shooters scour the internet, especially OzBargain, to upgrade their guns on a budget?

          What about the people who shoot competitively that aren't Olympic level? As with all sports, there are people who are members of local clubs who deals like this might be relevant to. Or anyone else who has been thinking about replacing/upgrading/acquiring one but not as an urgent matter and a deal like this crops up that they take advantage of.

          I know I definitely don't plan on buying most of what I find through this site, but take advantage of good deals when they comes up

        • resisting the urge on 09/08/2017 - 15:34
          +2

          @Slippery Fish: I see. But by allowing deals on items restricted in the rest of the community in an otherwise general forum, it would in real terms mean they can (and would) be promoted as if they were a normal, everyday commodity.

          Which they are in many other far more significant parts of the web. There are significant risks to the site if it risks getting mixed up in the promotion of weapons, especially to some.

          An anti-censorship argument can similarly be made for allowing XXX rated content, which brings similarly unmanageable risks relating to child-porn, etc.

          Not even f4c3fook can run a site without having restrictions on content that can be considered, or even be perceived to be inappropriate.

        • Magpye on 09/08/2017 - 15:58

          @Gimli:
          Because you've gone from being subjective about whether a deal should be advertised, to prosecuting the argument that your friend should not have a firearm, ostensibly because you believe he should not have one, regardless of his needs or requirements.
          You trust the police to carry firearms, and they are the ones who have the final say on who, and the conditions under which, someone gets to own a firearm.

          I don't own a firearm, but have no problem if others do. I also don't smoke, but don't care if others do.
          But then again, I've actually been under enemy fire, so probably have less of a knee jerk reaction to these things.

        • Magpye on 09/08/2017 - 17:01

          @Kangal:
          "Not unless you have a an iron-clad society that has a personal empathetic culture like Japan"
          Not sure if you want to use them as an example. They used to tie prisoners to boulders in order to test their swords on, or to trees, so their children could practise archery.
          It hasn't always been bowing and 'domo arigato'.

        • Hayesy22 on 09/08/2017 - 19:15

          @Domingo:perfect common sense reply that completely wrecks someones argument.

        • Kangal on 10/08/2017 - 02:04

          @Magpye:

          I'm talking about modern-day Japan.
          You are thinking of either ancient Japan, or war-time WW2-era Japan.

          Crime is astoundingly low in Japan, even in Tokyo, especially violent crime.
          One of the worst things a Japanese person could do, is to insult a stranger. Their modern-day culture is "weird" like that. Although I'm personally a fan, because I'm a very respectful and curious individual, so their behaviour is very good in my opinion. Not like the stereotypical ghetto-dwellers in Australia, or even rude/unprofessional customer service staff.

          Hence, a nation with a respectful-tolerant culture like modern day Japan would be able to live without a "gun problem" even if the availability of these weapons was more easy. Australian public is not ready for such a responsibility.

        • Kangal on 10/08/2017 - 02:57
          -1

          @Domingo:

          Just because you keep saying something doesn't make it true. A gun is a piece of equipment. Much like a knife. They can be used in a range of different ways and unfortunately some people use them in the wrong way.

          When I say gun, I am talking about handguns, shotguns, submachine guns, automatic rifles, sniper rifles, and the like.
          These are all derivatives from East/Central Asian handheld-cannons/war-rifles from the 13th-century.
          It's primary purpose was to kill another person. Like an upgraded crossbow, one that can pierce chainmail and steel plate.

          They changed and evolved over time, but only to be efficient at its purpose: to kill.

          "Hunting rifles" are derived from regular rifles which were designed to kill people from a long distance.
          However, many not all hunting rifles are still lethal to humans.
          "Farm shotguns" are derived from regular shotguns, which in its early days as smooth-bored guns were designed to kill people at a medium distance.
          However, many not all shotguns are still lethal to humans.

          It's not true because I keep saying it… it is a fact on its own accord.

          You have some strange ideas. Cars are perfectly well suited to transporting goods.

          Cars can transport goods, of course, only an idiot would say they cannot.
          However, the early concepts, the first in which you can identify it and say "that's a car" were built from 18xx's-19xx's and actually they were designed to carry few people without load. Did you know that?
          Still, its frivolous for you to bring this point as it adds nothing worthy to the discussion.
          So you see, my analogy was logical. The gun was designed to kill, but has derivatives used for niche recreational purposes. The car was designed to transport people, but has derivatives used for niche recreational purposes.

          Who said anything about walking around Woolies with a rifle? I'm talking about people legally purchasing a piece of equipment to conduct a legal activity like participating in a sporting contest or pest control or hunting.

          You made the fallacy that people using a Gun, that was modified for a niche recreational purpose, were murderers.
          I called you out on that fallacy, by asking if those people took those Modified Guns around public centres.
          You didn't answer, because the answer is "obviously no". So you veered off-topic from the get-go in this point, and avoided addressing it. The short of it is: being an Olympic shooter requiring a Modified Gun does not equate to one that needs to own their own Regular Gun. And even the Modified Gun can be not-owned and simply supplied for training at various facilities.

          What about the people who shoot competitively that aren't Olympic level? As with all sports, there are people who are members of local clubs who deals like this might be relevant to. Or anyone else who has been thinking about replacing/upgrading/acquiring one but not as an urgent matter and a deal like this crops up that they take advantage of.

          I know I definitely don't plan on buying most of what I find through this site, but take advantage of good deals when they comes up

          So now your point is to "remind" people to buy guns. People who are interested, yet aren't responsible enough to actually research and responsibly-buy their hobbies. The problem here, is obvious, that guns are treated like toys. No, this is not the latest iPhone. This is a tool of destruction, and must be respected as such. Anyone who is actually serious about getting a gun for their farm, for their occupation, for their Olympic ambitions will need to get proper training, research, and go through the required hoops. This allows them to think more carefully about what they are asking for, and to actually realise if they really want/need it.

          The easier that guns are attainable, and the more dispersed they are in public hands… the more chances that irresponsible people will receive one/several. And it will also increase the occurrences that these guns will be lost and stolen, allowing more people to get their hands on them who didn't get them legitimately and increasing even more irresponsible people to get it. Next thing you know; accidental shootings and massacres will happen. Such chain of events is documented in history already, why not learn from our mistakes instead? We can limit the "unfortunately" part of your first sentence.

          P.S. I don't own a gun, I am eligible to own a gun and I was interested in it. However, I've matured to the point where I researched it, and learned to respect it and realise it is not a toy/hobby I should take lightly. I've realised a gun is not necessary to me and many others, as its far more important to not put myself into situations that would require a gun. And if positioned in such a situation, there are other methods to survive/self-defence without a gun.

        • Yamai on 10/08/2017 - 14:49
          -1

          @Magpye:
          Good point.
          People love to use Japan as a prime example of values, but it wasnt long ago they were killing christian missionary's. Having a homogenous society does not make them better in any aspect.

        • Taverner on 10/08/2017 - 15:15
          +1

          @Kangal:

          When I say gun, I am talking about handguns, shotguns, submachine guns, automatic rifles, sniper rifles, and the like.

          When you say "gun", you're talking about a firearm. You don't actually get to select a narrow definition for a word in common usage. You're referring to a device designed to accelerate an object in a specific direction. That's it.

          These are all derivatives from … handheld-cannons/war-rifles from the 13th-century

          Yes, you can trace firearms development back to ~12th century china. Rifling wasn't used until 1498, however, so it's unlikely that the 13th century Chinese had "war-rifles".

          "Hunting rifles" are derived from regular rifles which were designed to kill people from a long distance.

          Hunting rifles are specifically designed for hunting. Hunting has been a pretty popular activity for the entirety of human existence. When hunting, your goal is to quickly and efficiently kill animals - this has a lot in common with military usage, but it doesn't mean they're the same thing.

          "Farm shotguns" are derived from regular shotguns, which in its early days as smooth-bored guns were designed to kill people at a medium distance

          "Farm shotguns" are just shotguns. They're regular shotguns. The modern shotgun is an evolution of the "fowling piece", a smoothbore firearm designed for hunting birds.

          It's not true because I keep saying it

          Correct

          The gun was designed to kill, but has derivatives used for niche recreational purposes. The car was designed to transport people, but has derivatives used for niche recreational purposes.

          The car was derived from earlier transportation methods, and initially the "car" was a powered version of the typical horse drawn wagon. At first, human transportation was the niche purpose since there wasn't an adequate road network in place for it to be "normal". Engines, whether steam or internal combustion, were used for a variety of other purposes before being placed on vehicles.

          I called you out on that fallacy, by asking if those people took those Modified Guns around public centres.

          Asking inane questions to divert the discussion doesn't "call out" anything or anyone. Nobody would expect any athlete to walk around Woolworths with their equipment, whether it's weights, firearms, vaulting poles, or a kayak.

          Modified Gun

          I'm not sure why you've started capitalising "gun", or what you think you mean when talking about "modified guns" and "regular guns".

          So now your point is to "remind" people to buy guns.

          There's no need to make leaps like that. He's obviously not trying to remind everyone they should have a gun. He's simply saying that a website with a wide number of categories that exists to help people find abnormally good pricing on items they may be interested in purchasing can probably justify allowing people to share firearms deals. Nobody's going to impulse buy a firearm - our strict ownership laws make that impossible, thankfully.

          Such chain of events is documented in history already, why not learn from our mistakes instead?

          We have. That's why we have such low rates of firearms related crime (and trending lower).

          I am eligible to own a gun

          Not unless you're already licensed, which seems unlikely. At most you're currently licensed for category A or B, which by the definition you asserted above doesn't actually cover many guns. You're almost certainly not licensed for handgun ownership, as that would require that you own a handgun and maintain competency with six club shoots per year.

          However, I've matured to the point where I researched it

          Perhaps you'll have an easier time understanding other people's perspective on this matter if you assume that they've also matured to the point that they researched it. Understanding that firearms are not toys and should not be taken lightly is something that most firearm owners are aware of.

          survive/self-defence without a gun

          Anyone with a basic understanding of Australian firearms law is aware that "self defence" is not in any way relevant. Firearms in Australia are not bought for self defence, and with the possible exception of a few very minor special circumstances they are not used for self defence.

        • Kangal on 11/08/2017 - 04:02

          @Taverner:
          Yes, when I say "gun" I mean firearms… and not something like a "Water Gun".
          I wanted to make that distinction. However, you are wrong that I cornered it into a specific distinction, as you can see I gave multiple examples and ended in a "and the like" which is synonymous as saying "etc etc".

          They really were handheld cannons back in 12th century. They advanced quite well in the late-13th century, and basically were "battle rifles" without the rifling, which as you know, was a technological achievement a little time later.
          However, the point is clear, the "gun" was a tool developed by people to kill people.
          Hunting rifles were not created in a clean room, they were either regular rifles which people used in the earlier days, or they evolved from these weapons. Essentially they are a "gun" that has been modified, and they still can be lethal.
          Hence, my initial assertion is valid, it really is a fact on its own accord.

          I said "Farm Shotgun" as there are many who make the distinction from other shotguns. This was to address their impeding point, not really my own. And as you know, even these tools were derived from "guns" initially designed to kill people.

          An automobile is inherently distinct to a horse-drawn carriage. Sure, they may do the same task but they are not the same on a fundamental level. And like my example above, the "gun" is also inherently distinct to the crossbow. So you cannot make an apples to apples comparison of carriages to automobiles… just as I cannot do the same for firearms and crossbows.

          The discussion was diverted before me. I called this out, in an argument, I wouldn't be punished for this.
          Tit for tat, I can make preposterous remarks too. However, I tried to circle back to the topic, and didn't get a response back from the previous commenter.

          "Modified Gun" reads distinct, to notify the reader that this isn't the standard firearm that is discussed. Not sure why you are nitpicking the grammar, instead of focusing on the discussion. Were you running out of points to make?

          There is an absolute need to make a leap like that. It is vital. It was what he proposed.
          And if you ponder about it, you will realise how foolish it is.
          Someone who is on-the-fence should not get a "gun" because a deal was posted on OzBargain. That should NEVER influence their decision. They should get a firearm if they are eligible, and can make a rational argument for one (not something immature like Bob has one, so I need one).

          I know, I am proud that we have low rates. I hope it doesn't get higher, thus, I believe the irresponsible people should not be able to attain one either legally or illegally.

          The "P.S." was just to give a bit of background context, I didn't intend to discuss it.
          But if you must, Category A, don't own any firearms, and one (discount) shooting club that I haven't been in a while.
          While myself and many intellectuals and responsible owners come to the same conclusions…. there are a lot of "gun nuts" out there in the public and online who kick and scream for less gun control despite many of them not really researching this stuff (or even properly handling one). "Self Defence" is the number one excuse used by these "gun nuts" to advocate changes in the law. While I do hate a Nanny State, I do believe there are somethings best managed on a national scale.

          +1 for your response and not resorting to personal attacks like many others.

        • [Deactivated] on 11/08/2017 - 08:31
          -1

          @Kangal:
          Do you really think that patting yourself on the back for introducing rational thought into a debate is not a slight? You're still firing your gnashing backhanded barbs and placing your sophomaniac self amongst intellectual circles, blissfully unaware of the elementary basics of language, such as your use of 'somethings'. Do your shoelaces up before you try to run.

        • Baysew on 11/08/2017 - 12:29
          +1

          @Kangal: jv only lowers himself to comment in the forums occasionally.

    • OzzyOzbourne on 09/08/2017 - 12:41
      +4

      I think 99% of drivers should not drive a killing machine, but they still do.

      • gimli on 09/08/2017 - 18:05
        +1

        99% of people can still click and collect without a gun

    • AustriaBargain on 10/08/2017 - 16:48
      +1

      I've not once seen a bargain for quality psychology on here.

    • jv on 27/05/2018 - 21:48

      Providing we have good gun laws, and rigorous psychological testing, then a bargain is a bargain.

      Doesn't mean they should be allowed to be advertised. eg. cigarettes

  • [Deactivated] on 08/08/2017 - 22:37
    +4

    Isn't diversity the new inclusive buzzword?

    Does the OP realise that guns are used for agriculture? It's not all bacon busters in bikinis.

    PS eneloops have been used for harm before. Them next?

    • Kangal on 10/08/2017 - 03:02

      Agriculture?
      Do you mean like "Water Guns"?

      Since you're on a roll to ban anything that can harm, you should be shining example to us all and stop posting, since words can harm ; )

      edit: whoops, there I go again posting in a casual manner to you. I know its inappropriate (bruh) so I'm very sorry, please accept my apology.

      • [Deactivated] on 10/08/2017 - 04:35

        You really need a thinking helmet.

  • djkelly69 on 08/08/2017 - 22:40
    +9

    Guns have a place in society (eg. on a farm, etc), so even though the deals are of no interest to me, I don't really see why they should be banned.

    The practice lock-picking sets on the other hand…

    • gimli on 08/08/2017 - 22:42

      lol the lock-picking deals

      but my point is that the market for guns is and should be very niche. I don't think we should be encouraging people to purchase guns, which is essentially what having it as a deal would do.

      • djkelly69 on 08/08/2017 - 22:44
        +5

        Is it encouraging people to buy guns, or just helping those looking for a gun get a good deal?

        • gimli on 08/08/2017 - 22:46
          +2

          Both. There might be a handful of people who have gun licences and buy the guns. Out of those the number who actually use it who knows.

          But also I'm sure it would make many people think hey all these people are buying guns maybe I should get a licence and a gun.

        • Kangal on 09/08/2017 - 01:12

          @Gimli:

          So are you saying we should ban deals on guns, but allow topics about guns and gun-deals to occur?
          I think that would be a fair compromise.

        • resisting the urge on 09/08/2017 - 15:23
          +1

          @Kangal: I doubt a topic about things involving guns would be banned. But if it descended into promotion of firearms however, it might be.

          Er… Gimli is not advocating for gun-deals to be allowed.

          OzB is a deal site first, community second, as it grew around that. As such, there is little point allowing topics around guns unless we wanted to promote them in our community. Guns are discussed all over the web on zillions of sites, where informed comment gives those discussions value to the participants. What is the point (other than driving a political agenda) in encouraging gun-topics here if gun-deals are banned?

          It could easily take away a lot of the fun for those of us trying to save 3c off ice-cream at Coles each week. If we had to wade through all hundreds of dollars worth of hot-bargains on cheap Chinese firearms that would flood the site.

        • phocus on 09/08/2017 - 15:54
          +3

          @Gimli:

          In most states you cant just apply for a gun licence on a whim. You need a valid reason, be it for sporting/hunting, etc.

          Its not exactly a quick process too.

        • nocure on 09/08/2017 - 16:52
          +2

          @phocus:

          Its not exactly a quick process too.

          That an understatement, I'm on week 9, still nothing :(

        • gimli on 09/08/2017 - 18:03
          +1

          @phocus: Anyone can put down hunting as the reason…

        • gimli on 09/08/2017 - 18:04
          +1

          @zerovelocity: it would be similar to adult toys/content. Deals are banned but topics about adult deals are not disallowed. (I.e. you can talk about whether adult deals should be allowed)

        • phocus on 09/08/2017 - 18:39

          @Gimli:
          All applications need a genuine reason for firearm ownership. Hunting is one and I'm Vic you also need to provide supporting evidence of your intention to use for firearms for hunting.

          http://www.police.vic.gov.au/retrievemedia.asp?media_id=1135…

          This is only just one of the many you steps of precaution for acquiring a firearm. Sure anyone could do it, but I'm sure there are easier ways to harm people if that is their intention.

          Judging from your tone of response, you clearly have had little to do with firearms in general. I would suggest you do yourself a favour and go to a range and see what culture is like. Safety is a huge focus for people who own firearms and they don't take it lightly.

        • Bludger on 10/08/2017 - 13:59
          +1

          @nocure: Ridiculous amount of time almost 6 months for mine in QLD.

    • jv on 27/05/2018 - 21:49

      I don't really see why they should be banned.

      No-one is saying to ban them… Just not to advertise them. Like cigarettes and tobacco products are not allowed to be advertised.

  • Sage on 08/08/2017 - 22:43
    +1

    Have there been gun deals??

    • [Deactivated] on 08/08/2017 - 22:46
      +2

      There were a few at EOFY and lengthy comments sections. This thread is just labouring it because one section failed to shut guns down. Enter passive aggressive leading polls and social engineering.

    • gimli on 08/08/2017 - 22:47
      +1

      there was one today

      • rompastompa on 08/08/2017 - 22:54
        +1

        Doesn't this thread expose us more to gun deals due to it's existence?

        • gimli on 08/08/2017 - 22:55

          yes. I will ask mods to delete the thread eventually

        • iamw0man on 09/08/2017 - 08:22
          +9

          @Gimli: Too late, I want one now.

        • altomic on 09/08/2017 - 08:27
          +2

          @iamw0man: to the gun store..

  • airzone on 08/08/2017 - 22:49
    +8

    This discussion has been had about alcohol. As a registered user, I believe we all have the ability to filter out deals we don't want to see on our page, be they guns, booze, house-of-gord style wallpaper printing press bondage machines, cars, etc.

    • rompastompa on 08/08/2017 - 22:53
      +1

      Well, today I learned…

    • gimli on 08/08/2017 - 22:54
      -2

      This is not about filtering deals so that you don't see it. Its about ozbargain not promoting the sales of guns.

      • airzone on 08/08/2017 - 23:14
        +3

        Why not take the same approach to alcohol? It is far more easy to get, and yet it produces arguably more severe negative impacts across all aspects of society…

        • gimli on 08/08/2017 - 23:16
          -1

          We really should.
          The damage alcohol does is quite enormous.
          But I think we need better public policy. Where as with guns I think we have good laws

        • airzone on 08/08/2017 - 23:43
          +5

          Having spent time in the US and seeing first hand the unfortunate result of their obsession with gun accessibility, I'd say I'm reasonably happy with our controls here.

          Education and personal accountability are key, and tbh, I find the latter to be sorely lacking in society these days.

        • resisting the urge on 09/08/2017 - 18:27
          +1

          @Gimli: And sugar. The damned stuff should have been banned years ago if anyone fully understood its impact on our bodies…

          But given that personal freedoms are also important, OzB limits its limits to those that relate to items that are restricted by law, rather than more important things such as basic, accepted medical science, and heresay!

        • Yamai on 10/08/2017 - 14:54

          @airzone:

          Guns were no where near my top 5 gripes with the USA,

          Rasicm, gap between rich and poor, illegal workers, far more dangerous than guns unless you were a stupid tourist who had listened to NWA and wanted to join a clique because your
          'hip'

        • jv on 27/05/2018 - 21:50
          +1

          and yet it produces arguably more severe negative impacts across all aspects of society…

          nah…

      • t_c on 09/08/2017 - 06:43
        +4

        "This is not about filtering deals so that you don't see it. Its about ozbargain not promoting the sales of guns."

        I would say it's more about you trying to garner user support to alter Ozbargain policy so as to be in line with your personal views.

        • gimli on 09/08/2017 - 07:00
          -5

          Yes that's right

    • Slippery Fish on 09/08/2017 - 10:21
      -1

      Bondage machines arnt allowed lol ;) see what I did there.

  • Diji1 on 08/08/2017 - 22:50
    -4

    There is no logical reason that posting deals for firearms will cause harm to anyone.

    There are of course large numbers of people that think even mentioning guns causes harm to people (including children somehow even though they aren't reading the site) and treat it as a taboo issue.

    My personal view is that people should be allowed to carry firearms including self loading weapons - unless they're demonstrated a propensity for ongoing violent criminal behavior.

    • gimli on 08/08/2017 - 22:51
      +4

      Carry it for what purpose?

  • rompastompa on 08/08/2017 - 22:55
    +2

    Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

    • gimli on 08/08/2017 - 22:57
      +9

      guns make it easier for people to kill people though.

      • King Tightarse on 09/08/2017 - 00:03
        +4

        Yes, push-button easy

        • chartparker on 10/08/2017 - 07:47
          +1

          It's a simple point and click interface

      • TheBilly on 09/08/2017 - 10:14
        +3

        So do War Axes and War Hammers. I don't see you making a thread about that - Do I? Gimli Son of Gloin

        • gimli on 09/08/2017 - 18:06

          I leave that to legolas but if he does then I will get deals on bow and arrows banned.

      • Slippery Fish on 09/08/2017 - 10:25
        +1

        On oz knife forum a guy took a Wiltshire knife sharpener (the insert the blade kind, took the handle off a Wiltshire knife and glued the handle side in, then glued studs on the handle part to make a trench knife / knuckle duster combo. Cost under $15, anyone who wants to hurt people will find a way, your argument while valid is nullified by the very people you claim it applies to.

      • Ahbal on 09/08/2017 - 19:15
        +1

        Cars make it even easier. A crazed person who wants to kill people (i.e same person who would use a gun) can plough through a horde of pedestrians with a car, far "easier" than a gun, but that never happens now does it?. Same should apply to guns. Not to mention that those who break the law will break gun laws (police are still finding many weapons with gangs and such).

        • Bludger on 10/08/2017 - 14:01

          Queue driver who ran over 6 soldiers last night in France. Who needs a gun?

    • anonymous01 on 09/08/2017 - 12:23

      Measles doesn't kill people, people kill people. Let's not vaccinate our kids anymore. Blame the guy who gave measles to your kid.

  • [Deactivated] on 08/08/2017 - 23:00
    +9

    I actually have problems taking moral advice, however veiled, from someone who doesn't understand the difference between 'census' and 'concensus'. It's an interesting question about where people do and do not get their thinking predigested, particularly about moral topics.

    • gimli on 08/08/2017 - 23:07
      +1

      Lol oops

      • [Deactivated] on 08/08/2017 - 23:09

        +1 for taking it on the chin :)

      • [Deactivated] on 08/08/2017 - 23:25
        +1

        As you are friendly, I will happily discuss why I think you are wrong. :)

        I do quite a lot of work with electronics and enjoy some of the electronics deals on this site. Ho hum, except many computer chips are restricted trade items. They can be used for missile guidance and other weapons. Forget guns and bullets, to order TI parts or launchpad kits from the US you have to sign restricted trade forms due to their use in weapons of mass destruction. I think there is an onus on the OP asking the question to be fully across the subject. Trust me, there are far, far more dangerous items than guns but they are just in your blindspot.

        • airzone on 08/08/2017 - 23:47

          But I bet they still list them as EAR99 though!

        • Kangal on 09/08/2017 - 01:21

          The problem is a handgun is very lethal. An automatic rifle more lethal. A bomb even more lethal.

          Computer chips that may be hacked and used for a missile system is not lethal. Its a controlled substance, sure. Though it is not the danger-point of a missile. You cannot buy a thousand missile computer boards and build one… you need the rocket fuel and payload/bomb. So your analogy or excuse doesn't hold merit for the subject.

          If you said you wanted to come over for a beer, and you had a missile chipset in your backpack… I wouldn't really care.
          If you came over with a large C4 bomb in there, I'd be running off, and calling the coppers.

        • bigeater on 09/08/2017 - 09:48
          +1

          Your example is irrelevant. There are huge steps between computer chips and missiles. But very little distance between guns and murders.

        • [Deactivated] on 09/08/2017 - 10:20
          +1

          @Kangal:
          So in your infinite wisdom, an off the shelf Bunnings LPG cylinder combined with electronic fuse is not dangerous? There is far more danger to Australia from synched electronic fire starting on fire ban days than someone with a gun, but you think that's not a threat? I don't think you understand the subject if you think chips must be hacked to be used.

        • Kangal on 09/08/2017 - 11:02

          @Frugal Rock:
          In my infinite wisdom, I can counter you again.

          An LPG Bomb is not as powerful or as effective as you believe it is. A conventional bomb is far more lethal.
          On top of that, a conventional bomb is already weaponised. An LPG Cylinder and Electronic Fuse need a user to actually weaponise the items together, and that step is dangerous, and likely to result in a suicide. And even if successful, it is not as lethal as a conventional bomb. So your example again is irrelevant… there's a disconnect.

          A gun is more lethal. Its ready. Its easy.
          Say you had a small gun, like a Glock, each magazine holds 17 rounds. And say you carried x10 magazines with you (some on your belt, rest in your backpack). Now lets say you ran into a kindergarten. The amount of destruction you can accomplish is astronomical. And you could escape from the event with your identity unknown, and escape unscathed.

          Say you are in the same situation. Except this time with an LPG Bomb. Its heavy so you only take one. And you have to drive up there with your car, exposing your number plate even if your face is covered. If you approach a classroom, the teachers will tackle you and stop your attempt. Or the children can run away. Your best bet would be to run at the teacher and children and detonate, which will kill you as well. And again, its less effective, so the damage would be far less than the above example.

          Not only that, but people could call the police as soon as they see some guy walking around with an LPG Cylinder and Electronics on it. However, some guy with a backpack is not likely to cause concerns from afar. And psychologically, children would be more paranoid about a gunman that can come anytime to their bedrooms and take them out, or anytime anywhere. They would be far less scarred about a random guy with an LPG bottle.

          I think you know far less than you think you do. And you're going about this in a religious order. I'm approaching this problem from a Scientific Viewpoint. And the point is, someone who is going to build missiles will build missiles regardless. Those people with iron-clad willpower are difficult to control/stop. However, guns allow regular people the opportunity to do mass damage because they lower the barrier of effort required to attain it. It's not about 100% controlling people, but rather, not making it easy for them to be destructive: the military uses the same tactics, its far less about killing your opponent and far more about exhausting them, making them waste their time and resources that they give up, or are easy to take over afterwards. Does any of this make sense to you?

        • [Deactivated] on 09/08/2017 - 11:11
          -1

          @Kangal:
          Your claim of a scientific viewpoint made me laugh. You're like Homer Simpson designing a car. If you want to learn science, go to university. Your Mythbuster and Robowars watching experience doesn't count.

        • Kangal on 09/08/2017 - 11:13

          @Frugal Rock:

          Graduate here.
          Mythbusters has more credibility than you know.

          Blasphemy! How could anyone not love Robot pit-fighting another Robot?!?!

        • [Deactivated] on 09/08/2017 - 11:19

          @Kangal:
          Then you should be able to work out that 173 people dying on Black Saturday is more than any Australian gun massacre you can name by an order of magnitude.

        • Kangal on 09/08/2017 - 11:35
          +2

          @Frugal Rock:
          The word "can" is used incorrectly here. The word you are looking for is "should".

          You seem to underestimate the stupidly of people. If Australia opened the floodgates to a gun-market like USA, the likelihood of such massacres happening will ascend overnight. You're like that over-confident driver "nah bruh, I'm such a good driver that I don't need insurance, I will never get hit by another car"…. then hits someone in the back while txting.

        • [Deactivated] on 09/08/2017 - 11:39

          @Kangal:
          Righty-O, Captain Plural: "Computer chips that may be hacked and used for a missile system is not lethal. "

          How does an Ozbargan ad change current gun laws in any way? Your technique is straw manning, not scientific. You are arguing with yourself.

        • Kangal on 09/08/2017 - 14:26
          -1

          @Frugal Rock:
          LOOOOOL

          I never said anything about OzBargain rules influencing the current gun laws.
          That there, my man, is a strawman argument you are presenting.

        • [Deactivated] on 09/08/2017 - 14:49

          @Kangal:
          Was your 'my man' added to make your comeback look less like rubber vs glue? Message me when your staircase wit catches up.

        • gimli on 09/08/2017 - 18:08

          I'm not saying they are more dangerous then the stuff you order.
          My perspective is that gun deals here potentially do more harm then good for the community. At the end of the day it is impossible to prove but my logic is that very few people will benefit from this deal and I don't think there is much harm in banning gun deals.

        • Kangal on 09/08/2017 - 20:17
          -1

          @Frugal Rock:
          It was an attempt to satisfy your casual side. You can go on calling me names, anyone that's literate can see through your strawman and weak argument points.

        • [Deactivated] on 09/08/2017 - 23:01
          -1

          @Kangal:
          Who wrote this masterpiece, again?

          "You're like that over-confident driver "nah bruh, I'm such a good driver that I don't need insurance, I will never get hit by another car"…. then hits someone in the back while txting."

          "I'm approaching this problem from a Scientific Viewpoint."

          Do keep up that bro-science viewpoint.

        • Kangal on 09/08/2017 - 23:45
          -1

          @Frugal Rock:
          Attack based on personal, rather than subject. Not only that, this particular attack is based out of context.

          Again, I was trying to appeal to your casual side with that comment and the one before it. After that you turned it into a personal vendetta and utilised a strawman approach towards the subject matter.

          How about you actually introduce some points relating to the topic and we discuss those instead?

        • [Deactivated] on 10/08/2017 - 00:44
          -1

          @Kangal:
          You lost me at 'bruh'. I'm disavowing any association with your nonsense, lest I be smeared with it. Keep telling yourself parroting strawman back is science. Have the last word or save your breath, I won't be taking the slightest advice from the writer of gems like "You seem to underestimate the stupidly of people", and elsewhere "A gun's primary purpose is to kill another purpose." Stupidly indeed. Rest assured, I don't underestimate it in your case.

        • Kangal on 10/08/2017 - 03:23

          @Frugal Rock:
          So lets summit this discussion.

          Your points and implications so far:
          - Computer chips that can be used to program missiles are more lethal and controlled than guns
          - Components to build an LPG-bomb aren't controlled, yet is as or more lethal than a gun
          - Australia's lack of gun massacre history is proof that gun liberty is a good thing
          - More people die from other causes
          - Personal attacks (bruh, my man, Scientific, go back to school, you're an idiot etc etc)

          My points and implications so far:
          - Guns can cause irreversible harm/lethal at a quick convenience
          - I'm much more concerned over gun carriers over PS3/missile-computer chip carriers
          - An LPG-Bomb is not as lethal as guns
          - These are my deductions through rational thinking/scientific viewpoint
          - An individual is intelligent, but the public is stupid. They, at least in Australia, are not responsible enough to have gun freedom
          - "my man", "bruh", "lol", "robot pit fights" were clear language flags used to cool the discussion and appeal to your casual side

          I like the situation we're currently in Australia. I prefer that we don't have a situation that spins out of control like in the USA.
          Hence, why I'm actually not opposed to having the deals here. However, if it offends some people I can at least understand where they're coming from. And if there is a big divide amongst two groups, then a compromise could be made such as banning the deals and allowing the forums, or putting all Adult related deals hidden from the public and only activated as per individual user's wants.

        • [Deactivated] on 10/08/2017 - 04:29
          -1

          @Kangal:
          "These are my deductions through rational thinking/scientific viewpoint"

          Why didn't the rest of the World think of that first, huh? Self-assessment can be misleading.

        • Yamai on 10/08/2017 - 14:56
          -1

          @bigeater:

          computer chips and missiles is probably a closer analogy than a legally licensed firearm owner and illegal use of the firearm.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join