Should We Boycott Amazon and FedEx?

Toothfairy0412 on 27/02/2018 - 23:06
Last edited 04/03/2018 - 00:34 by 1 other user

I know the US gun debate isn't entirely relevant to us in Australia but as a recent high school graduate, I feel strongly and morally obliged to stop buying from businesses that support the NRA, no matter how good a deal maybe. This includes purchasing from Amazon and using shipping services from FEDEX. Where does everyone stand on this topic?

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/delta-united-latest-companies-to…

http://time.com/money/5176783/nra-boycott-fedex-amazon-apple…

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/fedex-stands-by-nra-d…

https://www.change.org/p/jeff-bezos-remove-nratv-from-amazon…

some articles for interest

Update: fedex stocks have tumble 2.27% at time of writing

update: there is now a wikipedia page based on the boycott of NRA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_NRA_boycott

Poll Options

  • 69
    I will boycott these companies until they change their stance on the NRA
  • 350
    I will continue to purchase/utilise services provided by these companies.
General Discussion

Comments

        • Scrooge McDuck on 01/03/2018 - 19:15
          +4

          @ninetyNineCents:

          people in America pay significantly more than your medicare levy, and get far less.

          Only low income earners. Here they pay nothing and get something substantial.

          Your statement referencing "people", without any qualification of which people, is meaningless.

        • This Guy on 01/03/2018 - 19:52

          @Gizdonk:

          Australia is still fairly laissez faire. Laws are generally ignored in this country as long as you are not being a nuisance.

          I am pretty happy with our current gun laws. We have removed a fair few ridiculous weapons from our country through amnesties. People who want guns for self defence often don't understand that for a gun to be useful for self defense it often has to be accessible to children, the attacker and people with current metal health problems for it to have any chance of success at being used for self defence. Gun's also increase the stakes from non life threatening injuries to life threatening injuries.

          If you want a gun to 'prevent' 'government tyranny', join a gun club. That said, we have a small army and plenty of resources, so if there was any way a foreign power could 'liberate' Australia, most would at a drop of a hat.

        • nocure on 01/03/2018 - 20:29

          @This Guy:

          People who want guns for self defence often don't understand that for a gun to be useful for self defense it often has to be accessible to children, the attacker and people with current metal health problems for it to have any chance of success at being used for self defence.

          Please explain this

        • Pacify on 02/03/2018 - 02:28
          +2

          @JustHereForDeals:

          Well, sooner you leave the better.

          America is one of the most troubled western countries in the world. It has deep social and economic problems, inequality that is unreal. Its a fantastic place if you are rich, but the poor have it really rough.

        • FatBlanket on 02/03/2018 - 06:22
          +1

          @JustHereForDeals: cya mate

        • ninetyNineCents on 02/03/2018 - 10:23
          +2

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          SM: Only low income earners.

          99: Only low income earners what ? Write complete sentences.

          SM: Here they pay nothing and get something substantial.

          99: Thats true low income people dont contribute much if amnything to medicare.

          SM: Your statement referencing "people", without any qualification of which people, is meaningless.

          99: It means everyone. The average america pays significantly MORE for the health insurance etc than the average Australian.

          Everybody in america ends up paying more, kids break arms, grandma has hip operation, and so on. The cost of those services and medicines end up costing everyone more.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 02/03/2018 - 12:46
          +1

          @ninetyNineCents:

          99: Only low income earners what ? Write complete sentences.

          It's called answer ellipsis, it saves needless repetition in writing and it's grammatically correct. I was interjecting to your point that I quoted.

          Improve your own grammar skills before you make demands of others.

          99: Thats true low income people dont contribute much if amnything[sic] to medicare.

          Ergo the point of my original reply to you — US citizens have the freedom to not fund the healthcare of freeloaders, including irresponsible people.

          99: It means everyone. The average america[sic] pays significantly MORE for the[their?] health insurance etc than the average Australian.

          Everyone? I doubt that!

          Just the average US vs AU health insurance customer? Possibly. But only because in AU the healthy, the weathly and the responsible are required to pay more by both the Medicare levy and tax penalties for not buying health insurance.

          Everybody in america ends up paying more,

          No they don't. You just conceded that when responding to my reply about low income earners.

          Everybody being X is not equivalent to the average person being X. In a broad range of people there will be plenty who are less and others more than X.

          Neither is everybody equivalent to everybody in a specific group eg health insurance customers.

          These huge logical errors misinform non-savvy readers toward your political views.

          Universal health care requires the transfer of wealth from responsible to irresponsible people et al. US citizens are free of that burden, AU citizens are not.

        • ninetyNineCents on 02/03/2018 - 17:35
          -3

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          SM: Improve your own grammar skills before you make demands of others.

          99: Rubbish, just another lame reply that has nothing of substance behind it.

          ~

          99: It means everyone. The average america[sic] pays significantly MORE for the[their?] health insurance etc than the average Australian.

          SM: Everyone? I doubt that!

          99: Basically the vast majority. Far more accurate a statement than your nonsense from before.

          ~

          99: Everybody in america ends up paying more,

          SM: No they don't. You just conceded that when responding to my reply about low income earners.

          99: Really ?

          Your going to point out that my statement is 90% right while you were 90% wrong ?

          ~

          SM: Universal health care requires the transfer of wealth from responsible to irresponsible people et al. US citizens are free of that burden, AU citizens are not.

          99: Yet again you are avoiding the fact that Australians pay less and get a better deal overall.

          Im not disagreeing that there are many taking more than they should or getting a free ride, but in the end everybody is winning, and thats a fact.

          AT least be honest to admit that, that is of course if you understand the meaning of the word.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 02/03/2018 - 17:42
          +1

          @ninetyNineCents:

          I can't enlighten you when you lack the skills to comprehend what I have to say.

        • hayne on 02/03/2018 - 23:44
          +1

          @btst7000: Correct - we don't have a right to bear arms. Like most other nations in the world.

          The three countries out of nearly 200 with a constitutional right to bear arms - Guatemala, Mexico and the US.

          Firearm-related death rate per 100,000 people

          Australia - 0.93

          USA - 10.54
          Mexico - 11.23
          Guatemala - 34.10

          Enough said.

        • This Guy on 03/03/2018 - 00:48
          +1

          @nocure:

          This is stupidly long because I can't think of single a reputable source to prove my exact point. It's common sense and statistics.

          Lay on your bed with the lights off. Get up and put fresh undies, a top and a bottom on silently from a chest or wardrobe. That is about how long it could take for you to get a gun ready that is stored legally in your bedroom.

          You have the choice of a single action, low velocity rifle or a long barreled shot gun. Neither are suited for indoors nor will they immediately stop anyone with out training, luck or illegal ammo. If you don't believe me ask any hunter about wild pigs.

          This is all assuming you notice the intruder trying to enter your home and you are near your safe. Legally stored guns will not be accessible if your watching tv, asleep, mowing the lawn, bringing in the groceries or when away from home, etc.

          Say you had something illegal stored illegally next to your bed. You are probably going to miss and shoot up your roof or foot. When is the last time you have shot laying down in bed in the dark? Even if you hit them it's probably a harmless junkie. Congratulations, you've killed someone at the lowest point of their life!

          And it's illegally stored, so anyone can get it. I played with improperly stored guns before I was in school, a mentally ill relative did the same as a teenager (it was a different time).

          We don't have the accidental discharge rates of some other countries because of our storage laws, but around around 78% of gun deaths over the last decade have been from self harm compared to 16% from assaults, indicating that at least 78% of gun deaths are caused by someone with mental health problems.

          Finally, between the 80's and mid 90's, when you could store a gun however you wanted, 280+ more people died each year from firearms, indicating that lax storage and possession laws allowed more people access to firearms who were clearly mentally unfit.

        • [Deactivated] on 03/03/2018 - 10:17

          @Scrooge McDuck:
          I've been there with this guy.

          Will try to discredit your argument based on grammar or some imaginary construct. Failing both, will result to demands for quotes. All the while having not presented any further on topic rebuttal.

        • Greihawk on 03/03/2018 - 10:49
          +1

          @This Guy:
          There is no such thing as a harmless junkie, all junkies should be treated as potential physcopaths, the drugs that are used today are far different to even the drugs of 5 years ago. If you doubt me, ask around any health care professional who has to deal with them on a daily basis.

        • Other on 03/03/2018 - 14:04

          @ninetyNineCents: > The freedom to have no free healthcare

          There is no free health care - you just pay with it via taxes, where as in the US the employer pays for it (roughly - I mean u pay for it eventually - lower pay packet, but I'm talking about the mechanism).

        • This Guy on 03/03/2018 - 18:47
          +1

          @Greihawk:

          If that was true we would have a lot more homicides than the ~240 we have each year. Murder has even dropped the last few years. Robbery and even unlawful entry with theft have been down for the last few years compared to the start of the decade.

          Meth and it's substitutes have been a problem since the 60's. The effects are well known as well as ways to prevent triggering meth users.

          Designer drugs aren't new. They were passed off as other drugs before Tor, but have been readily available for a decade.

          Opoid use has risen massively in the last couple of years, but the users are more every day kinds of people. Certainly not violent.

          Any health professional worth their salt will always make drugs out to be a bigger problem now than before as it will help funding for current and future patients (which is their priority). If there was truly the problem you are saying it is, then this report would have a dedicated chapter on the subject.

  • payton on 27/02/2018 - 23:34
    +15

    yep, boycott them so more stock/bargain available for the rest of us
    cheers

  • ronnknee on 27/02/2018 - 23:49
    +42

    Why? They're entitled to their opinion to support whoever. What if we voted to revoke your OzBargain membership because of your views against NRA?

      • infinite on 28/02/2018 - 12:11
        -3

        Of course we would. If the teachers and security were armed, the ISIS sympathizer who shot the place up never would have got past the first classroom & it would have never come down to unarmed teens having to protect others and help take down the shooter.

        • ninetyNineCents on 28/02/2018 - 12:16
          +4

          I: If the teachers and security were armed, the ISIS sympathizer who shot the place up never would have got past the first classroom

          99: Nonsense, becasuse who says the teacher would have been lucky enough to get the first shot and that it hit.

          WHo is going to defend the kids riding their bikes down the road or playing in the park ? WHo is going to have a gun and watch your parents when they walk down the street because they want too ?

          Cant be much fun having to have someone holding a gun just in case.

          If the teachers had guns this idiot would have just waited for before or after school etc. You cant win if the answer is more guns.

          ~

          I: it would have never come down to unarmed teens having to protect others and help take down the shooter.

          99: Yeh this nonsense worked really well in Vegas didnt it. Nobody even knew where the bullets were coming from.

        • mooney on 28/02/2018 - 12:19
          +9

          Have a neg from me infinite.. security was armed and didn't do anything and teachers being armed is a stupendously dumb idea.

          I really hope they sort their shit out over in the USA, but I'm not expecting much. $$$ speak louder than kids being shot.

      • idonotknowwhy on 28/02/2018 - 13:03
        +2

        Not face-to-face, but on the internet, sure!

      • smartazz104 on 28/02/2018 - 21:04
        +1

        Why weren't they up in arms over past shootings? Oh that's right it only affects them now.

        • ninetyNineCents on 01/03/2018 - 12:14
          +1

          S: Why weren't they up in arms over past shootings? Oh that's right it only affects them now.

          99: Does it matter ? Does that mean past shootings are ok ?

        • smartazz104 on 01/03/2018 - 18:25
          +1

          @ninetyNineCents: I don't know, ask the people who weren't up in arms about them and are only upset now.

        • ninetyNineCents on 02/03/2018 - 10:26

          @smartazz104:

          If a tree falls in a forest and nobody hears it, it still happened.

          It all depends if you read the papers that day or if the papers even reported it. None of that actually means communities werent outraged.

      • Other on 03/03/2018 - 14:05

        I would.

  • owli on 27/02/2018 - 23:52
    +7

    I feel strongly and morally obliged to stop buying from businesses that support the NRA

    What are your moral arguments?

    • Toothfairy0412 on 28/02/2018 - 00:12
      -8

      The NRA is an association that seemingly and blindly supports that everyone should own and go out to buy guns. Less than 10% of gun owners in the US are part of the NRA. In fact, if you watch videos of the debates involving NRA representative they believe that guns are great and are not the cause of there thousands of gun deaths each year, often involving mass shooting of innocent individuals. They are an organisation that is a barrier to gun reform in the USA. Imagine if we didn't have gun restriction laws and every second week there's a mass murder somewhere and there is an organisation saying it's not the guns fault and we should continue to buy guns. Wouldnt there be outrage here? Companies supporting NRA are like supporting a dictatorship like an organisation with a say in politics. It can be compared to strong influential companies "bribing" governments to favour their interests in policies.

      • kahn on 28/02/2018 - 00:23
        +5

        Sure, but you're discussing this issue having already made up your mind that guns and the NRA are bad. For people who think otherwise, they would consider people and organisations opposing guns as trying to take away their freedom. Some of them would feel less safe without their own gun to protect themselves. They might want to boycott companies opposed to the NRA and gun manufacturers.

        • Toothfairy0412 on 28/02/2018 - 00:27

          We don't truly have freedom. If there was true freedom aka we could do everything we want, there would be laws. There are always limitations to freedom whether its what we say, do, act or believe.

        • altomic on 28/02/2018 - 00:36

          @2asian4this: so what you are saying is that: for man to be truly free then he must break laws?

        • blawler05 on 28/02/2018 - 08:20
          +4

          @altomic: for a person to be truly free he must have no laws to break. You cant break the law if one doesnt exist. Freedom is a pipedream.

        • idonotknowwhy on 28/02/2018 - 13:06
          +7

          @blawler05: in this household, we OBEY THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS!

        • Emerald Owl on 28/02/2018 - 16:36

          @2asian4this: please learn the difference between anarchy and liberty. The ability to do whatever you want without harm to others is true freedom.

        • frewer on 01/03/2018 - 15:28

          @2asian4this: >We don't truly have freedom. If there was true freedom aka we could do everything we want

          That is the definition of anarchy or schizophrenia ( if brings it down to personal level). In a society like that one wont just not only killed by guns but also by many others weapon

      • Almost Banned on 28/02/2018 - 00:48
        +9

        How many school shooters were actually NRA members?

        • Toothfairy0412 on 28/02/2018 - 00:52
          -1

          Nra are against restrictions, they are a barrier against gun restrictions that would eliminate at the very least some if not most of these shootings. The nra doesnt cause any of these shootings of course but their desire to continuing selling guns with no restrictions indirectly causes these events.

        • MrB on 28/02/2018 - 02:27
          +5

          @2asian4this:

          Aren't they against fully automatic weapons?

        • Mythreesons on 28/02/2018 - 09:24
          +9

          None. People like to blindly believe everything they are told by the media. Do your own research. My family have had guns our whole lives and have never shot any person.

        • Baghern on 28/02/2018 - 10:10
          +3

          @Mythreesons: yeah and when they do, they'll just be considered a lone nutter… not representative of everyone else

          AS someone mentioned recently and I assume in the past… hasn't anyone noticed that these mass killers haven't been effectively categories as white.. if the killers were a high proportion of any other ethnic colour, there'd be an uproar… and the media would be having a field day

        • ninetyNineCents on 28/02/2018 - 11:02
          +2

          Irrelevant, they are part of the broken system that continues the madness of guns everywhere while others are victims.

        • subywagon on 28/02/2018 - 11:09
          +6

          @Baghern: I'm pretty sure there are shootings daily in Chicago carried out by non-whites…

        • Baghern on 28/02/2018 - 11:13

          @subywagon:

          mass killers

          mass shootings

        • subywagon on 28/02/2018 - 11:25
          +4

          @Baghern: I get that, but being a pretty much daily occurrence I think it's comparable. I'm not sure if that kid that shot up a black church got done for domestic terrorism? His aim was to start a race war apparently. The D.C sniper was black, I'm not sure if they made his race out to be such a big deal.

        • owli on 28/02/2018 - 12:29
          +7

          AS someone mentioned recently and I assume in the past… hasn't anyone noticed that these mass killers haven't been effectively categories as white.. if the killers were a high proportion of any other ethnic colour, there'd be an uproar… and the media would be having a field day

          @Baghern: Whites are the majority of the US, If non-whites were killing as many people as whites are (Blacks are 13% of the population and are responsible for 50% of the murder), then it would be extremely disproportionate and there SHOULD be an uproar. White mass shooters are statistically insignificant in comparison to other gun deaths.

        • infinite on 28/02/2018 - 12:49
          +4

          @owli: Agreed.

          Also, almost all crime committed against non-whites in the US is also committed by non-whites, too. But yeah…. muh violent alt-right anti-Trumpf media narrative.

      • Big Dog on 28/02/2018 - 08:22
        +3

        NRA members are not the problem. In fact, the vast majority favour gun control reform. The problem lies with the people who run the NRA. Their massive salaries are directly funded by gun manufacturers. Hence they are paid to sell as many guns as possible. The NRA has been co-opted by these manufacturers as a very effective way in which to dictate government policy on guns. It's all about the money!

        • ninetyNineCents on 28/02/2018 - 15:49

          Anyone who wants a gun is part of the problem. Nobody needs a gun in a modern city or town, that s a fact. The only sensible reason anyone needs a gun is because they are afraid of all the other nutters with guns.

        • nocure on 28/02/2018 - 16:04
          +2

          @ninetyNineCents:

          Anyone who wants a gun is part of the problem. Nobody needs a gun in a modern city or town

          Bullsh!t…sign up for a range day at your local club, you might enjoy yourself.

        • ninetyNineCents on 28/02/2018 - 16:24
          +3

          @nocure:

          I know its difficult but sometimes you need to think of others rather than yourself. The more guns in a community the more violence with guns eventually happens.

          Its pretty hard to get shot if nobody has a gun, that may be idealistic but things are better the less guns a community has.

        • smartazz104 on 28/02/2018 - 21:06

          @ninetyNineCents: I feel like some people need to read up on exactly what 2A is and why people feel like they are entitled to own guns.

        • ninetyNineCents on 01/03/2018 - 12:13

          @smartazz104:

          The AC isnt perfect, it also said that slavery was legal. Sometimes we need to learn from our mistake and change, otherwise you end up with terrible consequences.

          Take a look at the islamic world, its a shithole for the same reason because they cant accept their old ways need fixing.

        • hayne on 02/03/2018 - 23:55
          +1

          @smartazz104: I think plenty of people understand the historical context for the second amendment (protection against abuses of sovereign power). The problem is when gun advocates try to blindly hide behind the second amendment to preserve their rights to own assault rifles that can be easily modified to enhance their killing capacity and that really don't have a place in civilian hands. You'll have a hard time convincing me that the founding fathers intended that the second amendment preserve the rights of the Sandy Hook killer to gun down 20 small children at school.

      • Seraphin7 on 28/02/2018 - 15:15
        +1

        You're just demonstrating your ignorance now.

        • ninetyNineCents on 01/03/2018 - 12:16

          Says the person who cant quote and doesnt share something useful that can help clarify an ignorance.

  • Diji1 on 28/02/2018 - 00:34
    +17

    No.

    If only Australians were so passionate about fixing our own sham democracy where two similar options run the country for billion dollar businesses at everyone's expense. Perhaps we wouldn't be in the crazy situation of the richest businesses paying almost no tax while wages have not increased for 20 years.

    Who knows.

    But one way you can find out is stop voting for either Liberal or Labour or anything else that operates against your and my interests as i just outlined.

    • kahn on 28/02/2018 - 00:38
      +1

      Just curious - have you read the book Deer Hunting with Jesus?

    • altomic on 28/02/2018 - 00:41
      +7

      too many lazy people.

      lazy person - "I'm a labor* supporter. Born and Bred. I'll always vote labor. I've voted for them the last 40 years"
      other person - "labor wants to introduce a law to euthanize everyone over 40"
      lazy person - "the only way this country will prosper is with labor at the helm"
      other person - "did you hear what I just said?!"
      lazy person - "yes, labor is looking out for everyone over 40, about time we got respect. that's why I always vote for them"
      .

      .
      *or liberal

    • Toothfairy0412 on 28/02/2018 - 00:45
      +5

      I conpletely agree that australia democracy is by no where close to perfect, but we do have things going for us that some can only dream of.

      • [Deactivated] on 01/03/2018 - 10:05
        -1

        The things going for us - natural resources.

        The things going against us by order of crippling debilitation -

        1. politicians
        2. eastern brown snakes
        3. the greens (they don't fall under "politicians" due to lack of charisma, nor snakes due to lack of cunning)
        4. blue ring octopus
        5. Cone snails

        And lots more.

        • Other on 03/03/2018 - 14:07

          judging by the down votes no one has a sense of humour… I guess stepping on Cone snails would do that.

        • [Deactivated] on 04/03/2018 - 17:45
          +1

          @TheMostHated:
          Looks like a sense of humour is more regulated than guns.

    • Baysew on 28/02/2018 - 10:07
      +1

      So we should vote National Party?
      They seem to have very strong family values.

  • [Deactivated] on 28/02/2018 - 01:33
    +1

    Should we buy Australian made? Same story

    • idonotknowwhy on 28/02/2018 - 13:08
      +3

      Yeah, but not caged eggs

  • MrB on 28/02/2018 - 02:15
    +14

    I feel obliged to buy from businesses who support the NRA.

    • ninetyNineCents on 28/02/2018 - 11:02

      Maybe you should move the USA and enjoy that paradise.

      • Binchicken22 on 28/02/2018 - 17:50
        +8

        Maybe you should move to China and enjoy that paradise? (no civilian firearms there)

  • poonky on 28/02/2018 - 02:22
    +42

    Jeesus christ OP you must have very few worries in your life if a gun lobby in another country is able to affect your online shopping habits. Would you also avoid flying on a Boeing plane because the company is a major military drone manufacturer? How about avoiding Made in China altogether until the country's human rights concerns are addressed? Think about it.

    • htg123 on 28/02/2018 - 02:40
      +28

      exactly. virtue signalling by boycotting two companies hardly makes much sense. The only way to truly boycott problematic companies is to research every item you buy, where it comes from, whether they pay a liveable wage, do they pay their fair share of taxes, do they support any organisation that conflicts with my views. You gotta be consistent, otherwise, it doesn't make much sense.

    • ronnknee on 28/02/2018 - 08:29
      +20

      recent high school graduate

      That tells you how much free time OP has.

    • Baghern on 28/02/2018 - 10:16
      +2

      Actually its ground swell movements like this that eventually snowball

      So many people don't vote, because they don't believe it matters… especially in the US where its not compulsory.

      Trump didn't get more votes than prior elections, he got less Hilary got so much fewer votes that Trump ended up winning. Despite that Hilary also won the popular vote by 2.9m

      • Seraphin7 on 28/02/2018 - 15:16
        +8

        Snowballs made of lots of little snowflakes.

      • MrB on 03/03/2018 - 01:32
        -1

        Despite that Hilary also won the popular vote by 2.9m

        Meh, Trump won by almost 34% more of the electoral votes.

      • Other on 03/03/2018 - 14:10

        So many people don't vote, because they don't believe it matters

        everyone knew how important it was - they just thought the candidates were horrible.

        Trump didn't get more votes than prior elections, he got less Hilary got so much fewer votes that Trump ended up winning. Despite that Hilary also won the popular vote by 2.9m

        The US system is electoral college vote system- you think she would of focused on that.

      • lostn on 03/03/2018 - 20:19

        Trump didn't get more votes than prior elections, he got less Hilary got so much fewer votes that Trump ended up winning. Despite that Hilary also won the popular vote by 2.9m

        It's not decided by popular vote but by electoral college. Hilary had about 2 million total votes more than Trump, but over 4 million of those votes were in one state (California). That means she was down 2 million votes in the other 49 states. One state doesn't win you an election. If 3.5 million Californians moved to other states and voted there, Hilary would have won. You win the entire state's votes whether you win by 4 million votes or by a single vote. So having a massive margin win does nothing for you, and is a waste of margin when all those supporters are located in a single state. As usual, it's the battleground states that win you an election. That is where Trump campaigned the hardest, and Hilary was too complacent to even bother, expecting the win to be in the bag. He campaigned smarter than she did, and knew exactly what he had to do to win. She on the other hand thought it was on a silver platter and deserved to lose, no matter who the opponent was.

        If our elections were decided by popular vote, Gillard would have lost to Abbott in 2010, and the margins that Coalition wins elections by become a lot wider. Especially that last one which was very narrow. If each electorate was taken on primary votes, yeah Labor will have a very hard time ever reaching 76 seats. That's why we don't use popular (primary) voting system.

    • ninetyNineCents on 28/02/2018 - 15:50
      +1

      Maybe you tell that the jewish lobby, who rightly so pointed out many of the german manufacturers who tried a bit to hard to help the nazis.

  • sgtdanny69148 on 28/02/2018 - 02:58
    +3

    I dunno about everyone here, but no matter how illegal they make it to own a gun here in Australia, it doesn't seem to stop people like Man Haron Monis or Farhad Khalil Mohammad Jabar from obtaining one.

    • Scrooge McDuck on 28/02/2018 - 03:35
      +14

      Neither of those 2 individuals were able to obtain a semi-automatic weapon. If they were, they could've murdered numerous victims before being neutralised by police. As it turned out, they only shot and murdered 1 victim each.

      And if guns were easier to obtain. We might have even more shootings.

      • Binchicken22 on 28/02/2018 - 18:06
        +8

        The type of weapon Monis had wasn't what stopped him from killing more. He already had a pump action shotgun (an illegal gun for 98% of Australians) and a group of people enclosed in a small space. If he made the choice on that day there could easily have been few people walking out of that cafe.

        However if someone in the cafe that day had a pistol tucked up their pants the poor bloke who did get killed could well still be here, so gun control takes lives too, it goes both ways.

        I honestly don't know the answer, but directly comparing Australia to america on every gun issue is not the answer, there are plenty of other nations with more access to guns, our close neighbours over in NZ can access a much broader range of guns than Australians, inc the medias much feared semi automatic rifle and they don't have any where near the issues of America.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 28/02/2018 - 18:26
          +6

          I agree with your points. Monis was a nut who seemingly sought attention (*gulp*) rather than to murder numerous people.

          I was alluding to the fact that the regulation of semi-automatic weapons significantly hinders the practicality of planning a spree shooting by terrorists and prevents access to them by a lone nut.

        • Major Mess on 02/03/2018 - 04:13
          -1

          @Scrooge McDuck: Government religious corruption is the cause in Australia. The none "special"religions see it as unfair. Combined with delusion and the resulting psychosis, and away we go.

          I had made freedom of interest requests to the PM and AG's office, the PM's dept replies were deluded and very hard to deal with. The request to the AG's dept included the AG's diary, which resulted in him being shipped of to London. This took it out of reach of the FOI legislation. Anyway the point is I had just started saying to friends that this is why people drive cars into people. Sure enough, the next day it happens in Melbourne. Heartbreaking stuff, the way a politician's foreign allegiance causes them to put that before Australia, and we live with the mess. Civil war could easily happen in the next 30 years if this mix of delusion and the real world continues.

          Reason and evidence is what Australia has progressed to. We should not have had to pander to the tune of 120 million dollars to decide if humans with a slight biological difference are really human. We did all of this in the 60's and 70's when Christians finally accepted people of other coloured skin were not a sub-species, that women are not worth less than men, and single mothers are not the devil's spawn.

        • hayne on 03/03/2018 - 00:00
          +1

          True, you can't just compare Australia to America. Hard to extrapolate from one example.

          But you can compare America to a host of other nations. And the simple fact is, the correlation between number of guns and number of gun-related homicides is very, very strong.

          https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shoot…

          It's pretty common sense. I don't think the question is whether there's a correlation between number of guns/lax gun laws and number of gun homicides. The real question is whether the freedom to have access to guns and assault rifles is worth the price America pays in mass shootings and gun-related deaths.

        • Other on 03/03/2018 - 14:15

          @hayne: There is no point in comparing a country with no gun ownership and one with and asking - who has more mass shootings? which the nytimes seems to do. A better comparison would be Switzerland (who ironically not long ago voted against more gun control).

        • lostn on 03/03/2018 - 20:27

          I think the Police killed more people than Monis that day.. and those guys did have guns.

      • pformag on 01/03/2018 - 17:17

        Hand Guns are semi-automatic. Very easy to obtain and can certainly do just as much damage. Majority of mass shooting in the US are done with handguns, not rifles.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 01/03/2018 - 17:24
          +1

          Revolvers are handguns but not semi-automatic.

        • nocure on 01/03/2018 - 17:24
          +1

          Very easy to obtain

          Really? Mine took 18 months, tonnes of red tape, several hoops to jump through , police checks, storage inspections, etc

    • Baghern on 28/02/2018 - 10:24

      But it has stopped a lot of people… its always funny to hear hardened crims get busted trying to get guns, you'd assume they could get it easily, even something as simple and small as a hand gun.

      Most illegal guns everywhere are obtained by taking it from legal owners/legal shops etc.

      • owli on 28/02/2018 - 14:34
        +1

        Has it stopped a lot of people, has it? Do you know how many have gotten through to compare it to?

        You do not see how many are getting through, only those who are caught. I think the term silent evidence is apropos.

        • Baghern on 28/02/2018 - 14:52
          +4

          So where are all the gun crimes we should be seeing… we don't, most crimes are committed with bats and knives anything.

          Why do we hear about career criminals getting caught trying to get guns at all then?

          Sure there are many that get through, not enough that your every day momentarily angry person can get one.

          Mostly we hear gun crimes are linked to gangs, who have networks harder to crack, but that doesn't stop the police taking guns off them

      • 4x4brenno on 28/02/2018 - 19:08

        "Most illegal guns everywhere are obtained by taking it from legal owners/legal shops etc."

        You're kidding right? I'm going to assume you have reliable facts you can present us for that argument?

  • [Deactivated] on 28/02/2018 - 06:53
    +14

    You realise the oz means Australia

    • Other on 03/03/2018 - 14:16

      its that type of common sense I hope we can stamp out.

  • TheOtherLeft on 28/02/2018 - 07:45

    What would be ironic is if the US government adopts some of the Australian gun laws, i.e. licensed gun owners must have a genuine reason for said firearm. So a lot of the city based gun owners join the Sporting Shooters Association of Aust (SSAA). Over in the US, it would be the NRA. Their membership would explode overnight.

  • Archi on 28/02/2018 - 09:26

    lovely how we can just pick and choose what we want to support.

  • TheOtherLeft on 28/02/2018 - 09:37
    +6

    Why are people trying to ban inanimate objects? We don't call for knife bans when people get stabbed. Or ban cars after cars are used intentially to kill people. As others have said there are cultural and mental health issues that are the root of the problem

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join