Conflict Resolotion 101 - Rebels style

splay (expect if I'm swimming) either.

heh... no!

Just that I have a couple on my upper arms and some on my back.

Nothing that can be seen if I'm wearing at least a T-Shirt (which keeps
them out of the sunlight and the UV degredation).

The only time I wear less than a T-Shirt and shorts in public is if I'm
swimming.


G-S

 

Only because you haven't mentioned that you do.

Of course, but based on your posts those others don't seem terribly high
on your list.

I'm very unjudgemental [1]


G-S


[1] Seriously.

 

Hardly heavy handed.. they're still holding regular amnesties to collect
firearms that should have been handed in over 10 years ago.

Nev..
'07 XB12X
'08 DL1000K8

 

Nev wrote -

What is extraordinary is how successful they have been at progressively
reducing the number of unused and unneeded weapons Australia wide, using
Port Arthur as a spur.

Poorly drafted legislation, passed on a knee jerk reaction but I suspect it
may have permanently reduced firearms deaths and injuries in the amateur
leagues.

It cheers me that we can do that here (suffer a minor loss of a freedom for
a greater good). Not sure the septics will ever be able to do that.

After some grumbling, I swapped the firearm collection for indigenous
spears; probably still offensive weapons but the ammunition is a lot
cheaper.

 

That is evidence to support my view that it was in fact rushed and heavy
handed rather than the opposing view.

If it had been handled more sensitively and garnered more wide spread
support rather than being rushed willy nilly through parliament without
consultation then they would have gotten better compliance.

Instead, many years later, some people obviously still aren't aware what
the legislation consists of or what the requirements are.

That could have (and should have) been avoided.


G-S

 

Oh ??? So, what fallacy of logic have we here? Clue: Your argument
appears to be that if you're not aware of it, it's not happening
[a subset of which is that if I haven't mentioned it in this thread,
it's not happening.]

That's your judgement.

That's your judgement.


=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

I'm not aware that I said that it did. Are you building another straw
man here? It's a nice spot for it...

"The presumtion of innocence" is a not a phrase meant to be taken
literally. It does not mean that everyone who has ever been found
"not guilty" is therefore literally innocent. Only an anal lunatic
would think that. Are you an anal lunatic, Geoff?

"The presumtion of innocence" is the theoretical START POINT of the
Westminster legal process. It is a philosophical device the aim of
which is that a person gets a fair trial. That's why the word
"presume" is in there. Look up what the word "presume" means, you
ignorant git.

So many pearls... so many swine... so few bullets...

=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

I think every gun owner knows exactly what the laws are regarding the
firearms they still own. I think the firearms which are being handed it
now are those which were owned by people who have since passed away and
their families are handing in the guns as they clear out the homes of
the deceased.

Nev..
'07 XB12X
'08 DL1000K8

 

So everyone is guilty until proven innocent, and it's not possible to
prove innocence when the best result is "not guilty" so therefore
everyone is guilty. You hoon.

Nev..
'07 XB12X
'08 DL1000K8

 

Of course it doesn't mean that anyone who has ever been found 'not
guilty' is actually 'not guilty'.

It does however mean that society should treat everyone who has every
been found 'not guilty' in a manner which presumes that they are.

Why I can already hear you asking

1. It is a basic rule of law that it is better that some guilty people
go free than some innocent people be punished.

2. We can't tell which of the 'not guilty' persons are actually innocent
and which are not after a trial.

3. I we treat all 'not guilty' persons as potential risks and
potentially 'actually guilty' and different to people who have never
been charged then we are also punishing the truly innocent.

That brings us back to point 1.

So we should be treating as far as practicable all 'not guilty' people
as if they are truly innocent. That is the moral and reasonable outcome
of the legal part of the presumption of innocence.

And no I'm not saying that 'not guilty' people shouldn't necessarily be
investigated.

I'm just saying that they should be investigated in the same manner as
if they'd never been charged in the first place and not be subject to
extra predudice from the investigation (or the investigating officers).

It is that but it is also more.



G-S

 

Really? I've been trying to get a clear understanding of this fuzzy
legislation for years and I still don't understand it.

Just when I think I do they issue another interpretation.

That is certainly part of it but almost certainly not all of them.


G-S

 

Nice rant, Geoff... but it has absolutely _nothing_ to do with
anything I've been talking about. It is, quite frankly, just another
of your straw men, arrived at, in this isntance, by manipulating one
of Iain's pathetic attempts at obfuscation. All very pretty, but only
in a quite meretricious sort of way.

I don't know what you _think_ I have been saying, but what you think
you're debating with me about is reallly not relevant to the debate
I've been having.

You're tried on numerous occasions to drag the debate away from where
it was, to some fictitious location where you then try to point out
some imagined flaw in the argument, whilst utterly failing to realise
that what you've done in reality, is nothing more than the manufacture
of a straw man.

Your straw men are none of my business, Geoff. Please talk to them
yourself. Just don't get caught. People will raise their eyebrows...

Now, if you'd like to get back to some topic which I _was_ discussing,
fine, otherwise, I'll start ignoring your rants.

See above...


=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

Oh for fucks sake read up on the fallacies of logic, Nev. You're
chucking straw men around all over the place. And it would seem that
you don't have any idea that you're doing it. That would make you an
ignorant moron. Are you an ignorant moron, Nev?

=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

No, you're probably confusing me with your war buddy George.

Nev..
'07 XB12X
'08 DL1000K8

 

More proof that guns kill!

 

Hehe, nice try but effectively, yes you did (1)

Should I call you "moyel" from now on ?

JL
(1) but you're a very good troll when you try, I *know* I shouldn't
reply but compulsively I must

 

I still didn't. Why go hunting when a well set trap will produce the
same results with far less effort. Pursuing an animal with a gun is
just an excuse for a bit of blood sport. Our ancestors survived just
fine for probably millions of years without guns (although a moyel will
probably dispute that).

Nev..
'07 XB12X
'08 DL1000K8

 

To be honest I can't think of a legal trap that would hold a pig and to
be honest I actually think trapping is probably more cruel (since they
might well be in the jaws of a trap for an extended time).

It isn't just blood sport but of course satisfaction with a sucessful
hunt is natural. Humans are bread to feel that way from millions of
years of evolution.

There is a difference between the feelings of a successful hunter and
that of a person who enjoys inflicting pain for the sake of it. Only
one is a sadist (and it isn't the hunter).

True they did, but they used bows and arrows, spears, boomerangs and
various other hunting tools.

I don't have a problem if people want to hunt with bow and arrow (I'm
not a good enough shot for that with a bow to be honest) but I have
spear fished (there's a good mix of hunting and fishing).

At the end of the day a gun used for hunting is just a means of
projecting force beyond the reach of the holder in the same way that
other earlier hunting devices were.

I should add that in some places they are now restricting cross bows and
knives.

Should I expect to see the same argument about bows, arrows and fishing
spears soon?

Oh hang on... I already am...

Because so many people are murdered by spear guns and bows each year *sigh*





G-S

 

Having avoided most of this thread I may be missing the point, however I
can assure you (and back it up with urls if you're actually going to
read them) that not only are civil libertarians alarmed by the SA laws,
the Law Society of NSW is hammering the big red button (in a genteel and
carefully unruffled way of course).

JL
Seriously Gerry, if you want to google it you'll see I'm about as
unsympathetic to the OMC's as you'll find in a bike rider, but these
laws are really bad. I actually volunteered to do unpaid legal research
to mount a challenge to them (and then piked for lack of free time).
This thing makes Howard's fascist "anti terrorism" (sic) laws and Joh
Bjelke Petersen's anti everything laws look weak kneed and lily livered

 

Which laws are you referring to ? If you mean the SA laws they've been
gazetted. Look 'em up on austlii.

JL