Proactive Vs. Reactive.....

sk8xr8 · 15-07-2009, 11:19 PM

Im over it, its draining to think about and even more draining to explain to the narrow minded, they wait until a nut job shoots a bunch of innocent people before they ban semi automatic firearms, they wait until a little girl gets thrown off a bridge before they put up barriers on the westgate, another little girl is bashed and is put into a coma by her father only weeks after her childcare centre reported signs of abuse, why the hell do people wait until there is an unspeakable tragedy before they act, then there is an uproar an everyone points fingers but no one is ever held responsible, and no one will ever claim responsibility.....

why do we wait when we know its only a matter of time before something terrible happens....

Noah built the ark before it rained... and we still havnt learnt.

**cs123** · 15-07-2009, 11:24 PM

some things are not always practical.
Consider the number of people that die in accidents that hit a tree or power pole. The solution is to put armco on every road, easy... who's going to pay for it?

We could reduce crime if every citizen supplied DNA to a central database and wore anklets with GPs locaters. We could put security cameras up on every street. Put speed limiters on all cars. Have all internet traffic packet inspected.

The list goes on....

4Vman · 15-07-2009, 11:28 PM

Because when we "pro-act" to prevent we get accused of being heavy handed and "over reacting"....

sarrge2001 · 15-07-2009, 11:30 PM

So, we should build an ark??

**cs123** · 15-07-2009, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarrge2001

So, we should build an ark??

Yes, as soon as work work out what the hell a cubit is

sk8xr8 · 15-07-2009, 11:34 PM

people have been jumping off the bridge for decades, then its a little girl that gets it changed, people have been massacred in other countries all over the world with these guns, kids have been abused left right and centre and we have the means to stop this stuff but we sit on our hands for economies sake?!? thats crap, but they can justify resurfacing a perfectly good road or waste money on other crap without asking the public about it....

Feathers · 16-07-2009, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarrge2001

So, we should build an ark??

Sounds like a good idea. What with the tsunami warning and all!

GK · 16-07-2009, 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sk8xr8

people have been jumping off the bridge for decades, then its a little girl that gets it changed, people have been massacred in other countries all over the world with these guns, kids have been abused left right and centre and we have the means to stop this stuff but we sit on our hands for economies sake?!? thats crap, but they can justify resurfacing a perfectly good road or waste money on other crap without asking the public about it....

I guess Political expediency now dictates such things.

I once worked with a lady who was a member of a political party, and worked within that party to develop policy. She told me that she lobbied for better roads in the Western suburbs of Melbourne, as they were pretty average. The response she got was "there's no votes for us out there!" She was shocked, because she genuinely cared about equality. I guess she should have known better?

Sadly, when pollies do what will keep them in for the next term, rather than what best serves the population things like this will keep happening.

Noah was a champion by the way.

GK

Work Horse · 16-07-2009, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sk8xr8

Noah built the ark before it rained... and we still havnt learnt.

The right wingers would tell Noah not to build an ark and to stop trying to run the animals life for them.

The left wingers would not be happy unless Noah built arks for all the animals.

Fortunately Noah found the middle ground.

Where the middle ground is will always be debatable.

xy500 · 16-07-2009, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Work Horse

The right wingers would tell Noah not to build an ark and to stop trying to run the animals life for them.

The left wingers would not be happy unless Noah built arks for all the animals.

Fortunately Noah found the middle ground.

Where the middle ground is will always be debatable.

funny, and wise. i like

Ohio XB · 17-07-2009, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Noah built the ark before it rained... and we still havnt learnt.

God told Noah to build the ark. Noah was reactive. (Genesis 6, verse 13 I think)

I understand what you're saying. We see simliar things over here. I agree with you. It seems a lot of times you can see things coming yet nothing is done.

I don't know Australian gun laws but if guns are banned and turned in by law abiding citizens how will the authorities collect the guns from the criminals? If only law abiding citizens are unarmed where will the benefit be because criminals will keep their's. In the US where concealed carry by law abiding citizens has been passed armed crimes have dropped. The criminals don't know who may shoot back.

I don't mean to turn this into a gun post. I just don't know what angles it has been looked at there.

Steve

NAK302 · 17-07-2009, 07:39 AM

the gun buy back scheme was a reaction that became proactive. Howard needed money to pay for a war with the Indo's in Timor to secure the Gas fields up there. the easiest way to do this was impose a 1% medicare levy on the folks who earn more than average and didn't pay into the private health funds claws. even though the gun buy back scheme and Timor have been and gone, the levy still exists for all our ex pollies to enjoy free airfares and superannuation handouts.

**cs123** · 17-07-2009, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio XB

In the US where concealed carry by law abiding citizens has been passed armed crimes have dropped. The criminals don't know who may shoot back.

Steve

Are you suggesting that there are less shooting related injuries per capita in the US than AUS? or are we talking about a different US....

4Vman · 17-07-2009, 09:27 AM

All the gun buy back did was dis-armed all the honest law abiding people....

Work Horse · 17-07-2009, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Vman

All the gun buy back did was dis-armed all the honest law abiding people....

I'm honest and law abiding, it didn't effect me at all :nutsycuck

My sister-in-laws husband hunts pigs, he reckons it made him a better shot. He only gets one shot to take down a large bush pig or it's just the dogs and a knife between him and a very angry pig!

flappist · 17-07-2009, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cs123

Are you suggesting that there are less shooting related injuries per capita in the US than AUS? or are we talking about a different US....

It is interesting to note though that despite all of the gun bans the number of firearm related deaths and injuries in Australia has not changed.

The only difference of note is the number of suicides using firearms has dropped even though the actual number of suicides has gone up. (which means they are being used to kill OTHER people)

So I am wondering if the banning of all V8 and turbo 6 motor vehicles in Australia would lower the road toll....

If everyone had 4 cylinders it would make them better drivers wouldn't it and it would not effect people who use public transport and.......

The most interesting thing about all of this emotive issue is that most people have no personal experience and really no idea at all and are just repeating propaganda spun to them from whereever.

But to try and have a logical conversation with an antigunner about firearms is like trying to have a logical conversation about performance vehicles with Harold Scruby or trying to have a logical conversation about speed cameras with the Victorian Government........

Keepleft · 17-07-2009, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sk8xr8

Im over it, its draining to think about and even more draining to explain to the narrow minded, they wait until a nut job shoots a bunch of innocent people before they ban semi automatic firearms, they wait until a little girl gets thrown off a bridge before they put up barriers on the westgate, another little girl is bashed and is put into a coma by her father only weeks after her childcare centre reported signs of abuse, why the hell do people wait until there is an unspeakable tragedy before they act, then there is an uproar an everyone points fingers but no one is ever held responsible, and no one will ever claim responsibility.....

why do we wait when we know its only a matter of time before something terrible happens....

Noah built the ark before it rained... and we still havn't learnt.

Well, in order to get median barrier installed at certain spots (freeway), I usually have to wait until a fatality occurs, I then drag out pre-fatality correspondence advocated aforesaid barrier, and the GovCo initial response; usually telling me 'not needed, its a world class freeway' etc. I then offer to send it all to the surviving family members or their lawyers.

That gets the barrier installed. (Not a joke either).

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

But to try and have a logical conversation with an antigunner about firearms is like trying to have a logical conversation about performance vehicles with Harold Scruby or trying to have a logical conversation about speed cameras with the Victorian Government........

Yep!!

xtremerus · 17-07-2009, 10:55 PM

Typical attitude now-days for lots of people.
If it doesn't affect me, or I know nothing about it, BAN IT.

Teflon Turbo · 17-07-2009, 11:15 PM

i have to say for myself, i have seen some stuff going down and thought about not intervening, but in the end I had to do something. I was only involvled in one violent act, the others were like to offer some assistance.

i reckon regular people need to do more because people are everywhere almost all the time. Hard for cops or laws or barriers or what ever the case maybe to actually be there all the time at that time.

take that chapel street beating recently on video, how many people were standing around doing nothing, i know it's scary but you have to do something. well at least i would. i am a man and i couldn't live with myself, "a coward dies 1000 deaths, a brave man dies once".

Work Horse · 18-07-2009, 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

It is interesting to note though that despite all of the gun bans the number of firearm related deaths and injuries in Australia has not changed........

It is interesting, please quote your source?

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

The only difference of note is the number of suicides using firearms has dropped even though the actual number of suicides has gone up. (which means they are being used to kill OTHER people)

.......

You are wrong, the actual number of deaths per capita due to suicides has dropped every year since 1998.http://www.mindframe-media.info/clie...ges/807892.pdf

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

So I am wondering if the banning of all V8 and turbo 6 motor vehicles in Australia would lower the road toll....

The "ban" is already in place for young drivers, are you suggesting that is not "proactive" given the over representation of young drivers in road fatalities?

vztrt · 18-07-2009, 03:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

So I am wondering if the banning of all V8 and turbo 6 motor vehicles in Australia would lower the road toll....

lol, it is funny people get worked up when nothing is done...when it doesn't effect them.
Look at the thread on the NSW government making it harder to lower or raise your car. Most people in Australia will not really care if this law is passed as i doesn't effect them.
This country is wrapping everyone up in cotton wool as it seems as its everyone elses fault because people wont take responsibility for their own actions.

flappist · 19-07-2009, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Work Horse

It is interesting, please quote your source?

ABS, look it up....

If it were not the case the anti gun lobby would be sending media releases every 30 seconds.
The pro gun lobby have tried but get ignored as like many things, the facts do not fit the agenda.

e.g. How many stories have you seen on mainstream media about the huge rise in road toll in NT since the speed limits were imposed?

**cs123** · 19-07-2009, 01:38 PM

I can only find 2005 data.
OVERALL TRENDS

There were 2213 deaths from suicide registered in 2003. This number was a slight decrease from 2320 registered in the previous year.

Age standardisation allows comparison of rates between populations with different age structures. The age-standardised suicide rate (for persons) in 2003 was 6% lower than the corresponding rate for the previous year and 24% lower than the peak for the period 1993-2003, which occurred in 1997.

For males, in many age groups, there was a decline in age-specific suicide rates following peaks in the years 1997 and 1998. The age-standardised suicide rate for total males (17.7 per 100,000) in 2003 was lower than in any year in the previous decade (1993-2002).

Similarly for females, there were declines in rates for some age groups over this period and the age-standardised suicide rate for total females (4.7 per 100,000) in 2003 was the lowest since 1994.

Throughout the period 1993 to 2003 the male age-standardised suicide death rate was approximately four times higher than the corresponding female rate.

METHOD OF SUICIDE

In 2003 the most common method of suicide was hanging, which was used in almost half (45%) of all suicide deaths. The next most used methods were poisoning by 'other' (including motor vehicle exhaust) (19%), Other (15%), poisoning by drugs (13%), and methods using firearms (9%). This distribution was consistent with that of the previous few years. However, over the decade strong trends were apparent such as the increase in the use of hanging, and a decrease in methods using firearms. See Table 4 for data on broad groupings of method of suicide.

HLC · 19-07-2009, 01:42 PM

i remember reading somewhere that the actual number of firearm homocides every year had been decreasing, before the first buyback, and after it at the same rate, with spikes for bryant/monash. and therefore the buyback had no real effect on firearm homocides since they were decreasing at the same/similar rate anyway.

but i probably read that in the daily tele, so its not credible at all HAHA

platinumXR · 19-07-2009, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vztrt

...because people won't take responsibility for their own actions.

There's your problem right there.

Ohio XB · 19-07-2009, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cs123

Are you suggesting that there are less shooting related injuries per capita in the US than AUS? or are we talking about a different US....

Not at all. I am only saying that in the States (US States) where concealed carry by law abiding citizens, who get the certified required 12 hours of training with their weapon, the laws, and safety, has been instituted the number of shooting incidents have dropped compared to before the law went into affect. I am not making any comparison with Australia's statistics at all. I am merely saying that this practice in our country has netted a positive impact on gun related crimes.

Criminals knew the person they were going to rob would not be armed. It was illegal to carry a gun and law abiding citizens do just that, obey the law. Now if a criminal were to want to rob someone they don't know if that person, or one of the 7 people around them, are carrying a gun or not. This has been the deterring factor here and has been working well. Of course it has not elliminated gun crimes, but fewer gun crimes are being committed, and once in a while a criminal is "neutralized" so that he can't hurt or kill any others.

Getting guns away from law abiding citizens is easy, but their not the ones that we need to worry about.

Steve

Work Horse · 19-07-2009, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

ABS, look it up....

I have, where are you getting your information? Post a link.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

If it were not the case the anti gun lobby would be sending media releases every 30 seconds.
The pro gun lobby have tried but get ignored as like many things, the facts do not fit the agenda.

e.g. How many stories have you seen on mainstream media about the huge rise in road toll in NT since the speed limits were imposed?

Sorry I wasn't looking to provide a soapbox for gun debate.
I was pointing out the irony in your post. You complain about people having,"really no idea" or "just repeating propaganda" after quoting incorrect and (still) sourceless "facts" yourself.

flappist · 19-07-2009, 05:08 PM

Here is an independent paper by the University of Melbourne.

http://www.ssaa.org.au/research/2008...ack-effect.pdf

Read through that one. Not a lot of effect for the hundreds of millions spent.

Work Horse · 19-07-2009, 09:28 PM

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

The only difference of note is the number of suicides using firearms has dropped even though the actual number of suicides has gone up. (which means they are being used to kill OTHER people)

The link you have posted confirms you where wrong. The actual number of suicides has dropped every year since 1998.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

It is interesting to note though that despite all of the gun bans the number of firearm related deaths and injuries in Australia has not changed.

The link you have posted is an analysis of statistical data, it is not a scientific finding. Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
To obtain a scientific answer we would need a parallel universe where we had the same Australia but no gun buy back scheme. Then we would have something to compare our Australia with, that did have the gun buy back scheme, .

You can not say,"despite all of the gun bans the number of firearm related deaths and injuries in Australia has not changed", because you can not know what would have happened without them.

The OP was talking "Proactive Vs. Reactive". Without knowing what would have happened in Australia with no buy back, we can not say if it was proactive or reactive.

The middle ground will depend on your point of view. Some had the opinion the buy back went to far, others not far enough, so I guess the status quo is near the middle.

flappist · 20-07-2009, 12:22 AM

And one would expect nothing more than that from you.

The finding from the University of Melbourne does not agree with your personal view so it must be wrong.

There are hundreds of other documents on the same site from which that one was drawn. Go and read all of them if you really want to learn about this subject.

But I doubt you will or that you even care, like your posts on internet censorship et al, anything that contradicts your party agenda is untruth and heresy.....