Personal Freedom

[softail-joanie]

What does it mean?, to you. What do you believe it means to others? Should we be telling people what they can and can't have in their homes, carry with them in public?

If someone had something that they might possiblly be able to use to harm someone else, even if they had not done so, should we apply pre crime rules and take that item away? If it was a similar item to what others have used to harm others, should we punnish all who might want to have or carry said item?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRKBChzCbmU

[para-slights]

---

@softail-joanie wrote:

Why not take everything then, theres not a single thing in existance that can't be used as a weapon. But what about my hands? arent they a dangerious weapon, someone quick cut them off. But then I might be able to stab with my arms, better remove them too, and the legs, just to prevent me from kicking anyone. lol

People need to turn in their arms and legs for Australians to be safe.

---

The worst massacres of yours and ours was not commited by hands and feet. I'm not sure how owning or not owning a gun is detrimental to a person's freedom it's like a heroin addict saying that making heroin illegal is a slight to their personal freedoms

[master*and*commander]

---

@softail-joanie wrote:

Should we be telling people what they can and can't have in their homes, carry with them in public?

---

Yes, protection of society comes before protection of the individual.

Considering it is only a select few of society who are allowed to determine the guilt or innocence of an individual, the argument that a member of the general population be independently allowed to make such a decision and hand down a sentence (for the purposes of home invasion, public conflict) is in conflict with with the US Bill of Rights, the Constitutions of both Aust and the US, the ICC and the ICCPR.

[master*and*commander]

---

@nevynreally wrote:

Well, I reckon your second post was your best one.

---

Give me a minute, I'm just warming up.

One needs to use statistics with intelligence, not just select those which suit their argument or their argument will, as demonstrated, fail.

[myoclon1cjerk]

Firearm related deaths.Australia vs U.S.A.Per 100,000 people.2011.
Australia:0,86
U.S.A:10,30
You know where you can stick your Second Amendment.

[j*oono]

Beetlejuice.

[myoclon1cjerk]

On a list of countries and territories (over 200) re population density (decending order),the U.K comes in at 51st on the list.The U.S.A at 180.Taking that into consideration,would you like to comment on gun deaths U.K vs U.S.A ,master and commander? Your earlier argument is specious at best.

[chuk_77]

---

@softail-joanie wrote:

there are two laws of nature you won't see on any road sign

that is we all must be born and we all must die

between all of that adventure and time

for us to make our mark for others to find

keep the fire burning and eternety of light

you can take all you want away from the rightfull owners of said items, it won't stop people from dying.

---

what ya smoking? Its obviously some good stuff yeah?

[tezza2844]

---

@myoclon1cjerk wrote:
Firearm related deaths.Australia vs U.S.A.Per 100,000 people.2011.
Australia:0,86
U.S.A:10,30
You know where you can stick your Second Amendment.

---

And joanie, you can you add your god given right to that as well !

[master*and*commander]

---

@myoclon1cjerk wrote:
On a list of countries and territories (over 200) re population density (decending order),the U.K comes in at 51st on the list.The U.S.A at 180.Taking that into consideration,would you like to comment on gun deaths U.K vs U.S.A ,master and commander? Your earlier argument is specious at best.

---

Mine wasn't an argument. I am not an advocate for the freedom with which US citizens are allowed to posess guns, I am however an advocate for the consideration of all contributing factors before taking the **bleep** out of someone.

Australia's intentional death rate is 10.7 per 100,000 (9.7 to suicide)

The UK is 13 (11.8 to suicide) homicide 1.2

New Zealand is 14.1 (13.2 of which are attributed to suicide - wonder why that is)

The US is 16.8 (12 attributed to suicide)

Gun laws alone do not account for a 10% discrepancy in a death rate. Even without guns, a similar amount of people are still finding ways to cause intentional death. If the 10% discrepancy were because of gun laws then what are the contributing factors which influence death in those countries which have greater restrictions? Restricting the use of guns does not provide a lower death rate, it merely provides an alternate way to achieve the intended purpose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_death_rate

[poddster]

---

@azureline** wrote:
Yes we should restrict personal freedoms. Some people need that restriction.
I am happy to have them restricted for the safety of everyone.

---

Like locking up all the drunk louts?