Lessons for Australian republicans

I asked you a specific question. Why are you dodging it? Does your own answer trouble you?

 

I answered your question if you want so busy trying to defend the indefensible you would see that. So here it is again.

No, many years ago my wife (deceased) made a choice as did all Australian women and men. We all decided as a nation that the rule of law is more important then everyone walking around thinking they're Hoppalong Cassidy or Audy Murphy.

Our woman as are most US wome, very vocal on gun control.

 

Over the past few months there have been a couple of shootings which have sparked outrage at how they were able to get access to guns. No one seriously spoke out saying we need more guns.

The gun lovers and the NRA say that the answer to everything is a gun. Illegal immigration... Answer. . . More guns.
Street crime. .. Answer. . More guns. .
School massacres ... Answer ... More guns ..
Keep the politicians honest. ... Answer ... More guns

It seems guns are the answer to all your problems so. ..

Problems with school. . . Answer ... Guns
Problems with religion. . . Answer ... Guns
Problems with society. . . Answer. .. Guns

What's the real problem in the USA. Answer ... Fools

 

This conversation seems to have been derailed but it does demonstrate what is bad about the US version of democracy. A version where the public virtually have no say, a system based around the "electoral college". A system that was designed for a time and circumstance that have long gone.

 

That is not a correct statement.

No one in Australia was ever given the opportunity to vote for gun control, it was thrust upon the Australian people through a dictatorship - not through a process of democracy.

On 10 May 1996, 12 days after 35 people were shot dead and 18 seriously wounded by a gunman at Port Arthur, Tasmania, Australia’s state and federal governments agreed to enact uniform gun control laws.

Between June 1996 and August 1998, the new restrictions were progressively implemented in all six states and two territories.

Every Australian was automatically disarmed without even being given a vote.

That is not a democracy.

 

And the government were applauded by most of society. The election following however saw the greatest push by the shooting party to get change but most Australians resoundingly support gun control and I would bet every cent I own that tougher controls would get the same support .

 

This issue is bigger than gun control. It shouldn't matter whether people are "For" or "Against" gun control. What should matter to everyone is politicians taking away the people 1901 Constitutional rights to decided by way of a referendum regarding gun control laws in Australia. Doesn't everyone of voting age in Australia have the right to make a self-determination if they want specific gun laws?

 

Oh I missed that in our constitution I will read it again and get back to you

 

Remember a while ago that story of the off duty American cop in Canada in a forest somewhere, crapped himself when approached by a couple of Canadian blokes, didn't have his shooter and completely lost his bottle.

https://www.news.com.au/world/canad...s/news-story/aaaa0c1c178f150298a9779a1d90caeb

 

Go for it mate

Lobby for a referendum to reduce our gun laws and you have NO idea how much activism one little Bowerbird will cause

 

Actually we are given the opportunity at every election. We even have an active Shooters party and you are free to stand outside Parliament House with a placard or two lobbying to get it on a ticket. But there is a reason why neither of the major parties has gun reform as a platform.

It would be about as popular as a pig turd in a synagogue

 

And idiots

And Trump supporters

And more than a couple of Twonks..........

 

You tell me

You claimed on the other thread to be a scientist then demonstrate the skill of critiquing the research. It is a basic skill learnt by all scientists

There is one paper that is a systematic review

Go for it with critiquing that one

 

You dont know if your data is normized or not...yet stand behind its validity. Priceless. I am demonstrating my skill. Im having fun watching you dance around the normalization. Hint: data is a lot like a foundation. When you start off with a bad foundation, your house will fail inspection despite putting a fresh coat of paint on the trim. Your painting trim on a house that has a basement full of water. Wait until we get into vectors. Also, I come here to get away from my stressful work atmosphere thats why I dont like to mix the two. However if you care to discuss things like c13 and mass contributions and subtractions Ill be more than willing.

 

You are throwing that word around and it is obvious that a) you do not really understand the application to the research b) you cannot critique research correctly and c) you do not even know what a systematic review is

See if you really understood what you were talking about you would be demonstrating how the paper does not fit your supposed criteria.

 

Im not interested in your rabbit hole designed to draw attention away from the data you posted. either answer the question about your data or not. You posted the data, I asked you a remedial question about it. Either answer it or Ill begin inquiring about your profession.

 

Sorry but you have yet to demonstrate you have even read the paper. I am not doing your homework for you. It is not up to me to prove the validity of a peer reviewed published research paper. You want to challenge the paper's conclusions then you have to demonstrate where the research errors lie

 

How is the pro-gunning reaction going? Perhaps reference to an electoral switch alien to standard economic cycle rhetoric?

This is classic attempt at using raw data to celebrate ideology. Can you refer to a scholarly analysis that supports your argument? If not, why not?

You can always ask an islander how they love wearing the green and gold...

 

Its not up to you to answer the validity of the data YOU posted? Ok...thats was easy to debunk eh? You couldnt even answer a remedial question about it. We didnt even start to check the validity yet.

 

You didn't even achieve coherence. Have another pop!

 

Sure I did, you just dont understand it. Most people dont, dont feel bad.

 

You forgot an argument. Have a try! I'd prefer scholarly evidence, but whinge incoherently if you need to duck.

 

The argument hasnt started. I asked if the data supplied was normalized. Lefties apparently have zero and I mean zero idea what that means. Its a basic question that anyone who is posting data would know. So much for the left being higher educated eh? Wait till I get into percentiles.

 

This is fun. What is normalised data?

 

Sure is fun. Sorry Im not here to educate leftists, ask your parents why you dont know.