Dear Aidan,

<<Governments have the power because the people have given it to them.>>

"The people" means ALL people, but I haven't given them any such power and there are many others, including in this forum who haven't done so either.

Now even if I were to give the power to someone else, why of all things would it necessarily be the Australian government (an evil and illegitimate body in itself)? Why not the Danish government for example or Google perhaps? What for example if I believe that the latter are more unbiased and capable than the former to tell between right and wrong?

<<You might think other people's children dying from easily preventable actions done in pursuit of totally illusory benefits is preferable to governments having the power>>

What I think is that the judgement of governments is severely flawed. Yes, occasionally they could get it right just like a stopped clock shows the correct time twice a day, but they are very liable to determine that things that are right are wrong, or still worse, to know that what I do is right, but prevent me anyway because it's against their vested interests.

According to your logic, if children in Denmark die from what you believe are easily preventable actions and the Danish government doesn't do anything about it, then it's your government's duty to invade Denmark in order to save those children. Obviously the Australian government must know better than the Danish...

Any idiot who cuts off the worst, is liable to also cut off the best: Had Jesus walked today in Australia, then the Australian government would crucify him again (oops, politically-incorrect, out-of-fashion: it would lock him up instead in a mental-institution and pump debilitating drugs into his bloodstream).

<<but fortunately most people do not share your evil indifference.>>

Fortunately most people do not share you evil indifference about this involuntary body which forcibly controls a whole continent, exercising violent powers against all that continent's inhabitants, including those who never wanted anything to do with it.

Hi there YUYUTSU...

Wow you sure get right down to it hey ? '...the Australian government, an evil and illegitimate body in itself...' ? In some respects, you'd get no argument with me on that statement.

'An illegitimate body', no I don't think so, considering they were voted in by our existing electoral process, flawed as it may be ? However if you're speaking figuratively or allegorically well I'd probably have to agree with you ! Our existing LNP government seem to be 'again' smitten with this awful political paralysis, even inertia, call it what you will ?

They're like wildlife dazzled by the bright lights of an approaching vehicle speeding toward them, in the dead of night ?

We've heard just this morning, members of this awful ISIL movement, have returned back to their Sydney homes having acquitted themselves admirably, whilst fighting in Syria !

We're told our government can't do anything, 'blink' 'blink' ostensibly, 'cause they can't make the existing law(s) retrospective (ex post facto) ? Any decent AG worth his salt (with support) could establish a pretty good prima facia brief against them with something surely ? At least find some evidence of an inculpatory kind, they've acted illegally whilst in Syria ? Even by pursuing the relevant provisions of the 'old reliable' Tarpaulin Act, certainly in the fullness of time at least !

More I think about what you say, the more I agree with you YUYUTSU !

Good arguments here on both sides of the gun debate! There is a clear logic arguing that the more guns in society, the greater the risk of guns being used as weapons. This is reflected in US statistics showing that gun homicides are at a much higher per capita rate than in countries where guns are restricted. At the same time there is a counter argument. Australia is a culture, historically, where male on male violence has not been taken seriously by politicians and the justice system. Until recently, if a stronger, more athletic man intentionally king-hit and killed a weaker man, the perpetrator could be given a minimum of only 4 years in prison. The message is clear in Aus that weaker men are not valued in this country. When compared to the USA, their sentences for assault are 2-4 times as long as here in Australia. It is so bad that men do not even bother reporting assaults in many parts of Australia. Also, the rate of assault in Australia and the UK where gun ownership laws are very strict, is much higher than in the US, where gun ownership is universal. This is very likely due to favourable gun laws in the US. In the US, a yob with a lust for violence will think twice about assaulting a weaker man because the weaker man could have a gun and US law allows the victim to use it in self-defense. The argument then would be that if Australians were allowed to carry personal fire-arms, there could be increased gun violence but there will certainly be less gratuitous violence because the yobs will think twice about beating somebody to pulp. Anyone who has worked in the casualty dept of a major city hospital in Aus will have witnessed the real extent of violence in this country whether alcohol fueled or not. The US has very strict laws about the unlawful discharge of guns. It is no longer the wild west. It also appears to be a country where ordinary decent men are valued as human beings.

Factseeker, "There is a clear logic arguing that the more guns in society, the greater the risk of guns being used as weapons."

No, it is a fallacy. From Wikipedia, "Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises. In a non sequitur, the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion.

Factseeker, "This is reflected in US statistics showing that gun homicides are at a much higher per capita rate than in countries where guns are restricted."

No again, this time you are making up your 'facts'.

Factseeker, "At the same time there is a counter argument. Australia is a culture, historically, where male on male violence has not been taken seriously by politicians and the justice system."

Say what?! You are making up your 'facts' again.

That covers your first three sentences, so rather than waste more minutes of my life I will leave it there.

Onthebeach,
The comments here do not have to use 'formal logic' to make a case. This is not about expounding mathematical proofs. It is about opinion and logical argument. Rather than reading Wikipedia, go to the oxford dictionary and find the definition of the word 'logic' or 'logical'. The sense most people use the word 'logical' is as a synonym for 'plausible'. Then read what I have written again. As the saying goes "When you point to the moon, the fool looks at your finger".

Factseeker and onthebeach,

Is the logic of the argument really not clear to you? When someone, even momentarily, wants to use a weapon, more guns means there's a greater chance that that's what they'll use.

Of course just because it's logical doesn't mean it's correct, as there could be other overriding effects. However the big drop in gun crime (and the even bigger drop in gun suicides) in Australia since the Howard government's gun laws were enacted suggests that it is correct.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Yuyutsu,

<<According to your logic, if children in Denmark die from what you believe are easily preventable actions and the Danish government doesn't do anything about it, then it's your government's duty to invade Denmark in order to save those children. Obviously the Australian government must know better than the Danish...>>
That's not my logic. For a start, my logic would acknowledge that war has much too high a cost for it to even be considered, and would also acknowledge that such changes can be brought about peacefully. And if we know better than them, why don't they know what we know? It's probably one of the first things that can be remedied.

As for why it should be the Australian government that power is given to, it's because there are procedures to keep the Australian government accountable to the Australian people. Imperfect procedures, but procedures nonetheless. Now I don't know if you're just trolling or you really do prefer anarchy. But if it's the latter, then I have one thing to say to you: FOAD!

I don't think I've ever said that to anyone before, but if you really want to destroy the conditions where civilisation can thrive, and replace it with a darwinian situation of survival of the best armed, I really don't think there's anything useful that you can contribute here.