Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 12^th, 2015 at 9:01am:


So one night at a club, she is approached by a guy for a dance and a shag, and figures he is harassing her, which falls under AV legislation - she feels it is thus - so she pulls her pistol and drills him between the eyes?

Judging by the aggressive behaviour of many women these days, there is no way I'd free up the licensing requirements for firearms.

What I would do is find a better way to allow couples to resolve their issues - via open discussion - rather than permitting the State to intrude with an act of violence and disempowerment and often unreason against one side without proof - a sure recipe for disaster.

When will the State learn that you will never control violence by exerting violence at whim and that bullying by police and courts to 'control' a situation where in the vast majority of cases no violence has occurred, will only exacerbate the situation and result in an escalation of violence overall?

https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/29505969/mcdonalds-shooter-was-on-dv-order-police/

On a larger note :-  at what point do the rights of the State to control and intervention into the life of the individual start and cease?  When it's 'politically correct' we stay out of people's bedrooms and homes and personal relationships - but when there is an agenda in play such as reducing the personal power of some in our society - it is open slather.

Would this have happened had proper counseling and negotiation between two allegedly adult parties have been the case rather than the violence of intervention by the court?

Self defense means keeping yourself safe, harming others is a whole new ball game...

If, for example, a burglar enters my home and I shoot him that of itself is NOT self defense... Now if said burglar is unarmed welcome to a world of trouble for me shooting an unarmed person.

The gun debate relying on "self defense" is flawed.

People who actually need guns (relatively few per capita) have a good case, others who simply want them need to move on. I think the gun ownership argument has a parallel for the BIG car owners mob - for the main part they are trying to compensate...

Very few people actually need to own a gun.

mariacostel wrote on Sep 12^th, 2015 at 9:15am:



In Baron's world, once a fine upstanding member of society buys a gun (legally), they remain law-abiding citizens for the rest of their lives.

He truly believes that.

You miss my point - the current approach by this society offers NO protection, as clearly shown time and again, and instead makes the whole situation worse.

No need to cater to me, my son - I know - you don't.

The whole deal needs a serious revamp and the application of reason and not the total nonsense that currently dictates the course of the whole issue of family disagreement - which is all it is in the majority of cases, until the State ratchets it up with its acts of violence against specified individuals.

I mostly respect your views, but on this occasion you are using stereotypes and propaganda instead of sense and reason.

Do not be mislead by feminist propaganda and bullshit.

Page Turner - you

What kind of message for reason and fair discussion of any disagreement does it send when women are told that unless their old man toes their line the State will bash him up?

It sends the clear message that any resolution will only be on the basis of violence - and it is all downhill from there.

It's the same as maria's negotiating skills - all discussion will be on the basis that if you do not agree with me - you're sacked.

You really have to laugh at the puerile petty Fascist mindset of those who seek to run the show here... the old adage that those who would seek power are those you would least want to hold it - holds terminally true here.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Sep 12^th, 2015 at 10:08am:


Well, I disagree. This society affords some protection, but, it is not yet perfect...

That is what we need to work on improving.

What is clearly shown time and time again is that;

a) The system has flaws that let both men and women down.
b) The systemic flaws often cater to the criminal, however, closing down said flawed system would only highlight the areas it had been working. The highlights though would be to our detriment.
c) The media will ALWAYS promote it's own agenda.

Regardless of gender, for example, the most dangerous time for a victim of domestic violence (and their children) is when they actually decide to leave and act on that. Regardless of our system.

I don't disagree with you that the system needs work.

I do disagree regarding the application of reason though. For the main part the frame work of the system is designed to priorities those at highest risk... Whilst it still fails at times to do this, this is why those at the not so high risk end feel hard done by... Lots of consideration and reasoning went into this frame work.

The problem is, once we had the frame work as a society we decided the job was done. Now after how many decades, the flaws are well and truly on display, yet, there seems no will, or reasoned consideration as to how to address the flaws. It is almost a collective shrug for the main part. Then we have those who are outspoken about the system, however, mostly, they do so from their own experiences alone and a limited perspective, hardly reasoned thinking.

The statistics are consistent by the way, that's not propaganda.

We need some significant societal change.

We need more Men reporting when they are the victims of ALL forms of violence for example - that will shift the statistics which, eventually will have to lead to change. It was the statistics that helped create this lopsided system after all. Our species does not seem to work to well if we can't evidence our reasoning behind doing (A) because of a statistical trend... I don't think we are going to change that anytime soon, so, let's work within the system to prove that change is required...

I fail to see how that thinking is influenced by "feminine propaganda and bullshit"... Which, by the way, sounds just a tad anti-female. That was my point I think about how you express your views.

Separating the wheat from the chaff, or in other words, the propaganda and bullshit from the evidence available would be a most pressing issue...

Do you really not know what constitutes violence in society?  The actions of the legal system are violence in the name of civilisation - be wary that they become not an end in themselves or purely an avenue for oppression.

The exercise of Law must be used sparingly lest it become itself the danger it is trying to prevent.  The NAZIs knew that and worked to achieve it... not all laws are legal...... when they themselves abrogate Law.