• 74 Posts
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: July 4th, 2023


  • 5 stars. That’s the default.
    The logic to US companies is backwards to us. We think of it as earning your stars. And yeah, 3 is kinda average. Not bad, not great.

    They think of it as 5 stars is normal. Perfect every time. You lose points for imperfections.

    Example: An Uber driver would lose their job at around 4.1 average rating. So after your trip, you can say 5 stars (normal) or anything else (fire this driver).

    It’s stupid, and completely ruins the point of a rating scale. Plus, it’s also not really compatible with Australian culture. We would think 4 stars is good. 3 stars is ok.

  • You’ve clearly got a lot of energy Nath, that’s quite a post - including hints of antigun talking points, such as the reference to US suicide statistics.

    I’m off work sick at the moment. I have bursts of time and lulls of sleep this week. I don’t know that I have antigun talking points; you were correct at the start when you said “most of the community don’t think of guns at all”. I genuinely don’t think about this issue all that often. I wouldn’t call myself “antigun”, More “anti guns in populated areas”. I wouldn’t even call myself educated on the topic. I had assumptions regarding the law that were wildly inaccurate.

    In case I wasn’t clear prior: I’m not about taking guns away from people who need them. I’m not against hunting or sport shooting. I’ve even gone onto a range in the USA and fired rifles at targets. I was pretty good for a novice.

    You seem to think of people as awaiting an opportunity or the day they snap or whatever.

    Not as much “awaiting an opportunity” as the possibility exists for people to snap. I don’t believe I have a breaking point where I could go killing people - I expect very few people do. But, at the same time we do need to recognise that it has happened and could happen again.

    Nothing that has been proposed would have stopped the impetus for this change, the double murder we keep circling back to.

    While I agree that the new law would have had no difference to that horrible double murder situation, this law has been in the pipeline since 2016 - and was initially introduced by the previous government. It was not introduced in response to recent events. The final vote on it was probably rushed ahead of the winter recess though.

    As I’m sure you’re aware, you already have to justify each individual purchase, you already have to store them in a certain way, you can only really use one at a time, and used for evil, a .22LR kills a human just as dead as a .50BMG.

    I’m only vaguely aware of most of this in fact. I only know bits of this through talking to people I know with firearms licenses. I didn’t realise you needed to justify individual firearms purchases. I did know you need to secure them. I did not know you could only take them out one at a time.

    My personal gripe with the law is the categorisation, which doesn’t group based on danger or anything like that, they were written with the secondary aim of pulling as many guns out of the community as possible back in 1996.

    I didn’t know anything about those different classifications. I can appreciate the frustration with trying to classify firearms on their level of danger. I don’t know nearly enough about guns to begin to try and classify them or participate in such a discussion. It is interesting to hear about though. I would be interested in watching a debate on the topic involving informed parties, and how the assorted firearms are classified. It sounds like an area my needle could be moved on.

    I do like your rifle, also. Was that a rifle issued to soldiers? My grandfather served in both world wars. I wonder whether he had such a rifle? He died before I was born so I never met him. Reading service record has been cool though.

  • Not going to lie: I like this better than ours. The Aussie crew have learned a lot though and I think they’ll do something better than just a boring flag next time. Even the random stuff on our flag like the upside-down pony is more interesting than the flag by itself.

    I love the collection of smaller images. Did everyone have the template? I defended NZ a couple of times, but I didn’t have a template so I had trouble knowing how it was supposed to look.

  • NathOPAtoMetaInstance blocked
    2 days ago

    Don’t hesitate. Yes, if you report something anywhere, Lodion and I (90% chance it’s me) see it. There honestly aren’t very many reports in general, and because we have a question on our sign up page, we’re fairly sure that the accounts we approve are human. So complaints against aussie.zone users are rare. *

    If the report is for another instance, I’ll almost always do nothing. This one is an obvious exception to that, of course.

  • I’d ask you to tell me what is wrong with the CURRENT gun laws, because it sounds like you don’t actually understand them, but “guns are bad”.

    Guns are bad when combined with populated areas. Out in the bush in the middle of nowhere? I’m pretty relaxed about guns. I want to be protected as much as possible from the crazy stuff that happens in the USA. I realise that even with existing gun control laws that you can get incidents like the guy with a knife in Sydney in April. Think about how bad that day could have been if he had access to guns, though.

    So to answer your question specifically: I was both surprised and disheartened when I learned that guy who killed two women had pistols at home, legally. Had he gone to his local Westfield armed with a backpack of his pistols and ammo, he could have killed dozens of people. Which is horrifying.

    This change in the law doesn’t even prevent that scenario. I am ok with rifles at home, but not hand guns. It’s a bit hard to sneak up on a crowd and shoot half a dozen of them before someone overpowers you if you have a rifle and need to keep reloading. It’d be a different story if you are carrying a couple of pistols.

    your perspective of the danger firearms pose in the community is ludicrously overblown.

    It probably isn’t, but that also isn’t the point. I simply know of no reason why anyone needs a handgun at home. “I just like guns” is not reason enough to me to offset the risk of them being in the suburbs. It isn’t even just about the worry that the owner will snap and shoot people, going by US numbers, they’re statistically more likely to kill themselves with their guns.

    Yes, cars kill more people than guns. I see reasons why people need cars, though. So I’ve never bought into that comparison.

    Let’s go in the opposite direction and pick something ludicrous: You aren’t allowed to collect canisters of toxic gas - I actually think that’s a more appropriate comparison. Nobody needs to collect cans of mustard gas, even historic artillery shells of mustard gas from WW1. In the same sense, nobody needs to collect handguns. Both are more likely to kill their owners than anyone else. Both have no business being anywhere near people.

    He was a law abiding citizen until the afternoon he wasn’t

    Nice way to think of your common man.

    I’m not sure what your point is. I said this in response to the whole “gun owners are law abiding citizens” argument that is always bandied about. I’m not arguing against this point. I’m not even arguing against anyone I know who is licensed to be a gun owner. They’re all law abiding also. I’m arguing more about the risk that firearms pose to the community in general. Unlike cars, that risk is totally unnecessary.

    Yes. Shootings are very rare in Australia. I like it that way. I want to keep it that way. I would love for them to be all but impossible.

    So that’s my position. I’m fine with the existing license process. I’m fine with rifles in safes if you need them. I’m not ok with anything automatic or semi-automatic. I’m not ok with handguns at home. I realise my position is more extreme than the law. I clearly don’t make laws. 😃

    So, back to my question: what about the new law is bad? Or even the SA laws, what’s wrong with them? I only hear in the media that gun owners don’t like the laws. But I never hear what specifically they don’t like.

  • Given that I genuinely want to know and I don’t want to be in an echo chamber, what exactly about the law is bad?

    It sounds like you have a gun for hunting. So if I’m reading the legislation right, if you are licensed, you can have up to five rifles. You are required to store them securely and can’t go traipsing down St George’s Tce toting your hunting rifle. This all sounds completely reasonable to me. I don’t get the controversy from the gun gang.

    I have a mate who is a farmer and he needs a few rifles to protect his sheep, control feral animals, sometimes ethically put animals out of their misery. He also needs to store his rifles in a secure safe. That all sounds completely fine with me also.

    I have two friends/colleagues who are into sport shooting and fire handguns at the range. They can’t take their guns home and need to store them at the range. Again, this sounds reasonable.

    I was surprised that the dude who killed two women a couple of months ago could have handguns at home. he was a collector and had over a dozen handguns in his house. This does not sound reasonable to me. For obvious reasons. He was a law abiding citizen until the afternoon he wasn’t. Even under the changed law, he’d still be able to have handguns at home - just not as many.

    Help us to understand what the actual problem is?