Shockadelic - the problem with your laissez-faire solution, is that plenty of people with a treatable mental illness would opt to kill themselves.

In fact, most healthy people who want to die, would probably fall into this category. As for the unhealthy ones, they're the ones who should be granted euthanasia, and would be in the hospital system and able to be properly assessed.
As far as them not being eligible, I'd support revising this system - given that we don't currently have a legal euthanasia option, you can't claim one way or another what kind of restrictions this hypothetical system would have - thus your argument is nixed, unless you're referring to the mentally ill/depressed people I refer to originally.
I can understand people with a debilitating health condition wanting to die - as for other people, I'd suggest we try and help them rather than just giving them access to a gun.

As far as me being all doom and gloom, that ain't the case. Refer to these threads if you don't believe me:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5883#81348

I'm damn happy with the Australia we have - I just don't see why people would want to mess that up - in fact, I tend to think the doom and gloom brigade are the ones telling us we need guns to solve the allegedly devastating situation we have.

What is it exactly you want to achieve by introducing more guns/gun rights into Australia?

"And when did your fear of guns first appear?" asks Dr Freud.

"I think I was about 9 or 10." replies TurnRightThenLeft.
"I'd played with toy guns as a child, but it suddenly seemed wrong and yucky."

"I see." says Dr Freud, doodling ejaculating guns in his notepad.

"And when did you learn to make a cogent argument?" asked the doctor.

"I didn't" replied shockadelic, already confused as to what he was actually discussing. The doctor took pity on him and gave him some medication to calm him down.

The thing about your posts shockadelic, be they suicide, guns or mental illness, is that none of them could possibly lead to an improvement in the situation.
You speak of how unimportant a small number of gun deaths are, you speak of the inevitability of suicide and the necessity of having easy access to firearms, yet I fail to see how any of these would result in reduced death or increased happiness.
Then you resort to hypothesising, insults and irrelevant musings. Nice work there chief.

The ole 'fear of firearms' card is played frequently by gun advocates... actually, a fear of stupidity is more apt, because that's what adopting a system more in line with the US equates to.

You ain't got squat to back your case. I'm glad Australia hasn't bought into that crap.

"And when did you learn to make a cogent argument?" asked the doctor.

"I learnt everything I know from TurnRightThenLeftThenInsideOut" replied Shockadelic.

"The thing about your posts is that none of them could possibly lead to an improvement in the situation.
I fail to see how any of these would result in reduced death or increased happiness."

What is with your obsession with "improving" things?

"The world isn't perfect?!
I want my mummy!"

This incessant dissatifaction with impure reality is *precisely* why people get depressed and suicidal, join cults, bomb embassies and do all sorts of other madness!
They think they can "improve" things!

Only people who believe in the nonsense of perfectability preach "improvement".

I haven't "bought into that crap" myself.

A perfect world is a static dictatorship.
A perfect person is a robotic slave.

That's why Adam and Eve ate the fruit.
To get the hell out of PerfectLand!

Nope, the world ain't perfect.

Though I'd say it's the people who give up on ever doing anything that might change things, who are the depressed ones.
Lets say, hypothetically, the world is made up of optimists and pessimists. One finds changes as generally a good thing, the other one finds change as a bad thing.
See if you can spot who the optimist is?

Oh, and like I said earlier, I'm quite happy with how Australia is already.

Shockadelic: Only people who believe in the nonsense of perfectability preach "improvement".

No, actually anyone can see a stupid situation and want to improve it.

It's really quite easy - basically you just go: "hey, wait a minute, there's more gun deaths over there."
"Seems kinda dumb to opt for that. Heck, I think I'll stick with what we have now."
Thus, by avoiding a stupid situation, you've improved things. Technically, nothing's changed, but it beats the alternative.

Whaddya know? I didn't even need to go to my 'mummy' for that one. Nor did I need to strive for some unattainable goal of perfection.
Oh, by the way, another nice bit of irrelevant hypothetical twaddle there. Thumbs up for that one.

So, by the logic of your last post - nobody should do anything, ever, that might improve things.
Uh... huh. By the same token, you may as well not make constructive arguments on OLO - gasp! It might improve things!

Bummer. Here I thought that was the point of constructive debate.

Well... in any case, if there's two arguments, and one improves things and one doesn't, I think I'll go for the former.

There's no obsession here - just a desire to avoid stupidity, though to do that, I should probably stop replying to your posts.
They've drifted pretty far from anything resembling a rational argument as it stands.

You've gone from "who cares about a few gun deaths" to "people who try and improve things are depressed."

In which case, lets not try your "improvement" in easing gun laws huh?

"I should probably stop replying to your posts."

And yet you still do.
Because like all namby pamby do-gooder know-it-all closet totalitarians, you can't tolerate anybody having an "unacceptable" opinion.

(But I bet you preach tolerance and diversity, day in day out.
Just not when it comes to guns.)

"Lets say the world is made up of optimists and pessimists. One finds changes as generally a good thing, the other one finds change as a bad thing. See if you can spot who the optimist is?"

Ah, cleverly changing the defined quarrel from "improvement" to "change".
Completely different meanings.

"Change" is inevitabre.
I'm sorry, it's what?
"Inevit, inevitabre."
One more time.
"Inevitabre! Things are inevitabrey going to change!"

"Change" is occurring constantly, but those changes can be beneficial, detrimental or neutral;
within our control, or beyond our control.

As a realist, I accept change is inevitable.
Also because I'm a realist, I'm sceptical of "improvement".

By your argument, the allegedly detrimental "change" of looser gun laws would be welcomed by optimists like yourself, because optimists love change!
You would also love the "change" of global warming or alien invasion.

"Nor did I need to strive for some unattainable goal of perfection.
Oh, by the way, another nice bit of irrelevant hypothetical twaddle there."

Irrelevant hypothetical twaddle?

Tell me, what is the *point* of "improvement", if not to eventually improve everything to the point where improvement is no longer required: perfection.

In this perfect world, "imperfect" deviation couldn't be allowed.
That would corrupt the perfection, so you'd get a static dictatorship.

"By the same token, you may as well not make constructive arguments on OLO - gasp! It might improve things!"

Well, it might let people know that there are *other* perspectives besides the namby pamby, do-gooder, know-it-all, closet totalitarian one.
If nobody ever spoke up for the pro-imperfectionists, people would presume we don't exist!

We had looser gun laws before, but no epidemic of gun violence.
What was the *justification* of the gun buyback, and the associated restrictions?
Some lone nutjob in Tasmania, not a general nationwide epidemic.