Punch on: Open thread 13/03/2012

MarkS says:

07:57am | 13/03/12

Wars & combat damage people. Show me somebody who comes out of a combat zone unchanged & I will point out a person who was already mentally sick.

So you have a bunch of mentally damaged people with firearms & the people they have been told they are there to save are shooting their mates in the back. If it was not for the strong training in western armies it would be surprising that this has not happened more often.

As for it requiring more than one gunman to kill 16 people. What is it with Muslim conspiracy theories? More than enough examples of lone gunmen killing a hell of a lot more people then 16, and most of them where not trained soldiers with modern assault rifles.

SimonFromLakemba says:

08:27am | 13/03/12

I don’t think he will be executed, America would go crazy if that happened. Most probably 20-life.

murph says:

08:32am | 13/03/12

Totally agree Mark

thatmosis says:

09:18am | 13/03/12

Hold on a minute, here we have one soldier doing a deed that cant be accepted in any way shape or form but daily we have the Taliban killing men , women and children and its accepted as part of the daily occurances and nobody gets up in arms about it.
  Killing of innocents by either side is reprehensible but the moral outrage against this one soldier is way beyond the pale. He killed 16 people and the Taliban and their ilk have killed thousands but he is the one being demonised. If people are going to convict this man for his deed and write articles about the sensless killings then not only should he be singled out but the taliban as well.
  This forced show of morality makes me sick to my stomach, whats good for the goose is also good for the gander.

fml says:

09:37am | 13/03/12

thatmosis,

That would be true if you could find one person or finds what the Taliban do morally acceptable. Just because you can not find any outrage against the taliban, which there is quite a lot, and is quite universally accepted that they are evil, doesnt mean that we should dismiss what this/these soldiers did.

Both are morally reprehensible.

James1 says:

09:57am | 13/03/12

“He killed 16 people and the Taliban and their ilk have killed thousands but he is the one being demonised.”

There is a difference.  We hold ourselves, rightly, to a much higher standard than do the Taliban.  Individuals like this awful man make us look bad because we don’t all live up to our own standard. 

That said, this does not reflect badly on ISAF.  It simply reflects badly on one member of ISAF.  Thus, we might not be as bad as the Taliban, but this individual soldier certainly is.

gobsmack says:

07:18am | 13/03/12

I could find equally offensive comments from the other side of the debate but that doesn’t entitle me to make generalisations about the reaction of the “militant religious/right wing” to people who are in favour of gay marriages.
Any article that attracts a large reader response will have posts from both sides that vary from reasoned argument to outright insults.

fml says:

07:44am | 13/03/12

“don’t try to change it to something else. ” That is the whole point of a democracy.

Do you see the Irony in saying that you shouldn’t use those terms to shut debate, while you are arguing for is the continuation of an establishment which PREVENTS someones freedom to get married.

“Remember you live in a free democracy,” That is probably the most Ironic statement. A free democracy, except you are not allowed to get married because you are gay, why? because the religious minority say so.

Rosemary says:

08:27am | 13/03/12

@ FML, if the religious ARE a minority. If it truly IS a minority opposing gay marriage then why not take the entire issue to a nation-wide plebicite? If the majority are in favour of it, then you’ll get your answer.

Let everyone, vested interests included have their say, and then let ALL the people vote on it. I just object to the perpetual whingers and professional activists setting the direction of Australia’s culture, society and direction.

If change comes, then let it come naturally, fluidly, not prematurely forced through by laws and legislation which have come about through pressure from militant, minority, noisy activists.

Blind Freddy says:

08:32am | 13/03/12

“Some of the comments I’ve read is that unless you support gays, you are either A. homophobic, B. a dinosaur, C. a redneck, or D. a bigot, or E. All four.”

That’s because no one has put forward an argument based on reason as opposed to one of, or all of, the above. You have a go- give a rational reason for not having marriage equality in a modern secular democracy?

TheRealDave says:

09:05am | 13/03/12

@Rosemary - what chance of an open plebiscite when one particlar party *cough* LNP *cough* doesn’t even have the decency to let its own members vote with their own conscious??

fml says:

09:23am | 13/03/12

Rosemary,

I am all for a plebiscite, The reason why it isn’t taken to a plebiscite is because both governments are afraid of losing the minority religious vote and the contributions they make to political parties. Now as for the religious being a minority, maybe not the people who believe in some form of divinity or spirituality, but definitely the people who are opposed to gay marriage, they are the fundamentalist few.

”  If change comes, then let it come naturally, fluidly, not prematurely forced through by laws and legislation which have come about through pressure from militant, minority, noisy activists.”

You don’t know what you are saying, do you? It has come naturally, now its time for the laws to reflect that.

Jason Todd says:

09:42am | 13/03/12

You seem reasonable enough Rosemary, so I am going to have a reasonable debate with you, without any name calling or tantrums.

Part of the reason that slurs and names get hurled around in this debate, is if you are on the Pro-Gay Marriage side, most consider being gay to be innate and therefore an accident of birth. They see that you can’t change being gay any more than changing your race. This is why the names get hurled around, because from their point of view, the opposing side of the debate is saying “We believe that you were born as less than us. We believe that you are broken and therefore do not deserve the same rights and considerations as the rest of society. Keep your business behind closed doors and shut up about it in public.”

Not pleasant. Now, I know that that isn’t how everyone on the anti-gay marriage debate feels, but there are enough loud voices wailing about perversion and destruction of society, that at times it does feel insurmountable.

I’d be happy if people would sit down and have a reasonable discussion about things, without it dissolving into an endless cycle of slurs and invective.

For my view, I support gay marriage, purely and simply because I see no real reason to oppose it. Being gay is natural, in the sense that it occurs in nature, as well as in the history of mankind. Gay couples are no different to straight couples in all significant human terms bar gender. They live, work, raise kids, pay taxes and go about their day to day like the rest of us.
I see no reason to oppose Gay marriage.

Now, if marriage was still the sacrosanct institution that it may have been at one time in our history. I would fall on the other side of the debate, and be fighting for the right of the religious to hold onto that institution. However, the fact is, religion has all but been removed from marriage. The institution has been exploited for profit, celebrity, and convienience for years and years, yet people are still trying to hold it up as the pure and wholly religious icon that it used to be. It is more of a legal matter these days. Having said that, if churches do not want to perform gay marriages, I don’t think the law should force them to. However to completely block all marriages because of a religious view seems narrowminded and illogical to me.

If you remove religion from the marriage equation, the only excuse I have ever heard against gay marriage that is devoid of religion is “Well, we have always done it this way”.
Holding onto tradition for the sake of tradition at the exclusion of the rights of others is no way for society to get on.

Rosemary says:

09:44am | 13/03/12

@ Blind Freddy, the ones who are desiring change should be the ones who should be putting forward reasonable arguments, it shouldn’t be up to me or anyone else for that matter to defend what has stood us in good stead for hundreds of generations of human existence. Yes, marriage isn’t perfect, however I believe the fundamental basis of a male/female marriage is sound. Yes, many traditional marriages will fail, but not because marriage itself is a fail, but rather because of the fallibility of humans themselves.

Personally I don’t believe in trashing thousands of years of culture and tradition merely because it’s trendy to do so, or because you want to be seen as politically correct, or empathic, or progressive. There has to be good reason to do it, and as I said to FML, change should come naturally and fluidly, and not forced through by militant activism. That simply puts people offside - or is it that you simply don’t care that thousands of years of culture and tradition are turned on their head?
I mean if you don’t care that marriage is trashed, then what else will be changed? What other bedrock of our previously-working society can be eroded away simply because it’s ‘old-hat’ or ‘boring’ etc. So let’s have open slather on all our institutions, all our culture, and all our history - and where will that lead us? I suspect to a culture that stands for nothing, has no history to look back on, and no bedrock to stand firm on. It sounds very nihilistic to me. I don’t want to be part of that.

AdamC says:

09:49am | 13/03/12

I agree that outrage seems to be used as a calculated technique by gay marriage activists. While I thought Katter’s ad was quite strange in its approach - those pixellations were bizarre - I clearly missed the supposed hate filled homophobia they were allegedly brimming with.

And, I do not agree with the ‘plebiscite’ (I assume people mean referendum) proposal. We are not looking to change the Constitution. It is the role of the Parliament to make laws in Australia.

fml says:

09:57am | 13/03/12

Rosemary,

“I mean if you don’t care that marriage is trashed, then what else will be changed? “

Trashed? how so? Back in the day divorce was forbidden, now its allowed.

Culture and tradition change with the times, it moves with the morality of the day, Slavery was abolished, Women received the right to vote, should we have kept these institutions just because it worked for a few people? Or was it the morally right thing to do and came about with the fluid nature of an evolving morality?

“I mean if you don’t care that marriage is trashed, then what else will be changed? What other bedrock of our previously-working society can be eroded away simply because it’s ‘old-hat’ or ‘boring’ etc. So let’s have open slather on all our institutions, all our culture, and all our history - and where will that lead us?”

Slavery and womens suffrage,  It lead to enlightment and equality for all. Gay marriage is the next movement. Where would it end? In equality for all.

It’s not nihilistic at all, Nihilism is a period where there is the absence of belief, where one lives by observing the laws of nature, Nietzsche was trying to rid the individual of religious dogma so they could find a new morality. This can be seen in the statement “God is Dead” In thus spoke zarathustra, He didn’t mean god is dead literally, but the way that we worship god is so far removed from the initial concept of worship that he we no longer know god.

Rosemary says:

10:00am | 13/03/12

Also Blind Freddy, one last thing. If you reduce a society to one that believes in nothing, has no values, no culture, no tradition, then in effect you are creating a ‘nothing’. Science has taught us that nature abhores a vacume, and something that is more aggressive will always come in to take its place. Think now about the cultures that are aggressive in our world. Do you really think that they would accept gay marriage? You progressives should be really careful what you wish for.

@ FML, if it has come naturally, then why so many voices raised against it? The issue is being forced, surely you must understand that.

Lauren says:

10:45am | 13/03/12

Rosemary - spin it all you like, but you’re simply stating that you think gay people are not deserving of the same rights as straight people. People will call you homophobic and/or a bigot because as much as you want to deny it, that’s what you are.

“if you dislike what someone says then by all means voice your disapproval, argue the facts if you are able, just never, ever shut them down, or shut them up.”

This is 100% correct. But tell me - when it comes to people voicing their opinions and never letting their opposition “ever shut them down, or shut them up” are you talking about everyone who has an opinion, or just the ones you agree with? Because your entire argument is that you’re tired of people protesting for gay equality, and say that that minority groups need to “harden up” and “accept” the status quo instead of actively trying to change discrimination laws. Which to me sounds like you’re trying to “shut them down” and “shut them up”.

gobsmack says:

10:45am | 13/03/12

@AdamC
So you didn’t think the age difference of the men in the photo or the expressions on their faces (like what you’d see in a mugshot) or the pixellation, which you mentioned, weren’t intentionally used to play on the fears and prejudices of the target audience (ie those on the right who might otherwise vote LNP)?
All activists affect outrage.  You only have to read the comments from men’s rights activists that appear on this forum, to see that is the case.

fml says:

10:53am | 13/03/12

Rosemary,

It is difficult to argue the number of voices for or against with out comprehensive statistics, what we can agree on though is that there is movement in both directions towards a resolution. The fluidity of the movement can be seen by the fact that there is discussion, nothing more, the discussion is not forced nor is the need for a resolution, the consequences no matter which way the movement goes will be on those who do not agree with the result.

There is a need, the friction is not coming from militant minority groups or any voices of dissent, there is friction because there is one group in our “free” society denying another group the right (i use the term loosely), actually, option is a better word, yes, option to partake in activities that others have the freedom to choose to partake in.

Sarah says:

11:32am | 13/03/12

I watched the video and frankly - I can’t see what all the fuss is about. Its not slamming gay couples. Its not homophobic. Its slamming Campbell Newman and trying to put a point forth to the voting electorate that this dude has backflipped on his call to support gay marriage AND that if you vote for Campbell Newman - you need to understand that gay civil unions/marriage etc is a policy/law that he supports and will most probably try to bring into action in Queensland.

The problem here is that the supporters of gay marriage are extremely loud and a lot of them are extremely aggressive (the media fronting ones anyway) in their support of these rights..

But since when was it a crime for ANY voting citizen to NOT believe in gay marriage? Since when is every voting citizen in Queensland SUPPOSED to support this, simply because a very vocal minority demand it?

We are a democratic society - which means we ALL have the right to an opinion and no-one should be shot down, harassed or bullied for having one. And yes - it IS bullying - when people snap and snarl accusing those who make very reasonable objections and call them homophobic or a nasty piece of work etc etc.

Anyone who identifies as gay should damn well grateful and apprecative to live in our democratic society - because it allows them to safely and legally practice their own personal lifestyles without fear of government recrimination. Try being gay in Iran and see how far that gets you…

But those conveniences that every gay person in Australia enjoys, are promptly forgotten and thrown out the window by this very very vocal minority who scream for support for Gay Marriage.

I personally, don’t have much of an issue with the whole thing. Yes, I personally do believe that we have far bigger fish to fry right now that the government should be focused on, instead of gay marriage - issues and problems that affect EVERY Australian and not just a select few. But - in the same respect, being a heterosexual puts me in the situation where if I think about being told that because of my sexuality - I am being told that I’m not legally allowed to express the love that I have for my partner, I’d be really really really upset and angry as well. So I do get, why people are all up in arms over this situation.

The whole thing has been completely blown out of proportion and there are plenty of people in the QLD community who, for whatever reason - have views that DO NOT support gay marriage and each and every one of those people have every right to NOT support it. This is why we live in a democratic society!

Yes Bob Katter is certainly conservative when it comes to his opinion on homosexuality - but again THIS IS HIS RIGHT. You don’t have to like it. You don’t have to agree with it. You don’t even have to listen to it, if you don’t want to.

But by God - you should be respecting it - just as everyone else expects respect for their opinions and personal belief’s.

Rosemary says:

11:34am | 13/03/12

Lauren, I am neither a bigot or a homophobe. What I am is a conservative, a culturalist and a traditionalist. Please understand the difference.

p.s. Please read my response to Blind Freddy at 11:00am | 13/03/12

@FML, then why not call it something else other than marriage - homiage perhaps? Let the word marriage remain for hetrosexuals. Create your own new traditions.

Slothy says:

11:51am | 13/03/12

Rosemary: Yeah, we’re not supporting gay marriage because it’s ‘trendy’, or hip, or because we think the old form of marriage is ‘boring’.

We’re supporting it because we want to be able to marry our life partners. Because we want to see our friends and family marry their life partners. Because we want strangers who have been in love for decades to be able to marry their life partners. No more, no less.

Ian1 says:

11:56am | 13/03/12

Are we still going on about this?

It’s quite simple really, the ALP National conference shut down Gay Marriage.  They aren’t taking it to the vote using a binding caucus.  Why harp on about equality when every man and every woman have the same legal parameters applying to them.  Equality already exists udner the law!  Meanwhile, just because the ALP couldn’t get it together to support GLBT issues pertaining to marriage, why have a go at the voters of the nation who post here?  Just vote Green and give up on Labor.  Just about everyone else has.

Everybody is free to marry should they desire.  All it requires is that a male member and a female member are the only two involved.

gobsmack says:

12:25pm | 13/03/12

@Sarah
“Anyone who identifies as gay should damn well grateful and apprecative to live in our democratic society.”
I’m not “grateful” to have what I see as a basic human right.
I don’t begrudge any party to stand on a platform that opposes gay marriages or to campaign on that policy.  That is their right in a democracy.  However, they can do that without putting out advertisements that would make Goebbels proud.

fml says:

01:30pm | 13/03/12

Rosemary,

Why not make up a new word?

Because words change meaning and evolve over time, Should we ban the marriage other than when it is used in the context of a man and a woman? To define it so it doesn’t mean the union of two entities?

“Create your own new traditions.” I find that interesting, when the institution of marriage isn’t a christian ideology, it was stolen from earlier ideologies, Heck, the entire christian religion has been adapted from earlier concepts, lets ban that too and ask christians to come up with a new religion

fml says:

01:55pm | 13/03/12

Sarah,

You should Damn well by the will of god respect my god given right to remove by any means necessary your right to practice religion.

You should be grateful that we secular australians allow you to practice your religion in a safe fashion without fear of recrimination, i mean just look at Iran!

I will not rest till ALL religion is outlawed in this secular democracy, it goes against the nature of a secular system that we Australians have fought tooth and nail for. You have a right to say what you want, but how dare you force your religion on me and other secularists.

Down with religion!

MarkS says:

02:15pm | 13/03/12

I did not care that much one way or another.

But the gay marriage lobby lost me when they declared they have a RIGHT to be married. A right means that I am obliged. In the same way that a right to life means I am obliged not to kill.

Every person who declares they have a right when they do not are stealing a little bit of my freedom. By saying that gay marriage is a right they attempt deny me the freedom to oppose it. Look at many of the comments here; they take the attitude that any attempt to oppose it is a misguided & evil attempt to deny people their basic human rights.

Getting married is not a right, but a social construct used by societies for various reasons to do mainly with raising children & inheritance. Gay marriage has little to recommend it in relation to the reasons that marriage exists in the first place.

The fact that I had no intending of opposing it is beyond the point. By demanding that I do not or be declared some sort of fascist they have lost me.

fml says:

02:42pm | 13/03/12

MarkS,

“But the gay marriage lobby lost me when they declared they have a RIGHT to be married. A right means that I am obliged. In the same way that a right to life means I am obliged not to kill. “

They do have a right. A right doesn’t mean you are obliged, It doesnt affect you in ANY way, it means others have the freedom to choose. No it is not thought of in the same way. You are obliged not to kill?? no, you are not obliged not to, you don’t have a right, it doesn’t even occur.

Not allowing gay marriage prevents freedom of choice, the crux of the issue is that gay marriage only affects the people concerned. By outlawing it you are forcing your ideology on others, it is fine to not like it, do not participate, but it is wrong to take that choice away from others. Imagine if the situation was reversed, Does allowing gay marriage prevent YOU from having a heterosexual marriage? no, right? So why should heterosexual marriage prevent a same sex couple from being married?

“Every person who declares they have a right when they do not are stealing a little bit of my freedom. By saying that gay marriage is a right they attempt deny me the freedom to oppose it.”

Oh the hypocrisy! You have every right to oppose it, in speech form. The thing is, gay marriage in no way affects your freedom, in no way. IF it exists, you can oppose it, if it doesnt exist you can still oppose it, with gay marriage being outlawed you are taking away the freedom of choice for others, what freedoms of yours are taken away if it is allowed? Mind you, you are allowed to oppose it, you are also allowed not to participate.

“Look at many of the comments here; they take the attitude that any attempt to oppose it is a misguided & evil attempt to deny people their basic human rights. “

It’s because it is, you are denying another person’s freedom to get married, one freedom you have, it in no way affects you, you have the right to oppose it and you always will, Allowing gay marriage doesn’t impinge on any on your freedoms, Not allowing gay marriage impinges on the freedom of others.

Either ban marriage for all, or allow it for all. the only argument people seem to have is the definition of a word. people are by law not allowed to get married, MARRIED, and people are upset about the definition of a word. God must be up there crying. Everybody knows its that the definition of the word marriage is just a “socially responsible” veil for more deep seated reasons behind not wanting gay marriage.

Lauren says:

03:03pm | 13/03/12

MarkS - no, gay people are saying they have the RIGHT to be able to enjoy the same rights as everyone else. You give heterosexual people the right to marry, then you should give everyone the right to marry. If not, you are discriminating, and as such they have every RIGHT to be pissed off about it.

And Rosemary - I did read your response to Blind Freddy. In fact, I read every response you’ve made on here, which is how I came to the conclusion that you are both a bigot & a homophobe.

Wauker says:

06:15am | 13/03/12

Bob, very apt, but haven’t you plagiarised this from your junk email in box?
Must admit I was appalled seeing some heavily tattooed guy at a charity joint looking for handouts.  Imagine how much food the hundreds of dollars could have fed him and his family.

Bob Stewart, the Elder says:

06:17am | 13/03/12

...and, not only this morning, it has been on my mind for a long time to put me in charge of education.

I would make the teaching of Community Values and the role of law compulsory major subjects for children before the 4000 “critical” behaviuor cases in SA public schools last year swells to 8000. Or another teacher is KO’d with a brick, or the Juvenile Court has to double in size or more than 20,000 calld to Drug Help Line chokes the system..

jay-ded says:

06:26am | 13/03/12

Not very democratic Bob.  What about the elderly?  What about mental illness?  I agree with the fact that a lot of families are on welfare when they can easily be out earning a living, except for the fact that with the cost of travel etc, the welfare they receive is usually more than they could earn.  With this in mind however, I think that everyone should work for the welfare they receive, even if it is painting over graffiti, cleaning public toilet blocks, helping out the elderly etc.

Bob Stewart, the Elder says:

06:27am | 13/03/12

To Wauker. Yes.This was sent to me by one of my sons and adjusted a little to fit my mood this morning. But Hell, does THAT really matter?

Bob Stewart, the Elder says:

07:10am | 13/03/12

To Jay-ded. “What about the elderly?” Well, what about the elderly? There was no need to mention the elderly who have earned the right to be provided for in a different system for the infirmities of age, i.e.  the infirm.  At 82, What am I thinking this morning?The infirm? Hey! that includes me.

fml says:

07:56am | 13/03/12

Yeeeeeeeeahhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaw,

Ive not seen so many generalisation’s since auntie mable got her left tit stuck in the mangle then went to the pub to win an arm wrestling competition. She won a hotdog.

“Put me in charge of Medicare. The first thing I’d do is remove the cost of all the medical and social consequences of booze, tobacco and illicit drugs from the community to user pays.”

Except that smokers and drinkers actually pay more tax than they take from the system, throw in private medical insurance, which they wont be able to afford on your generous welfare system. Taking that into account, why not legalise drugs and tax the baps out of it, oh and prostitution and all things fun.

Government housing? baracks? I suppose you are trying to get back to more conservative values, right? You know ones created in the 50’s with white picket fences and your neighbors names were Jim and Helen, and you could walk up to your neighbors house and hit Helen’s on the backside with a tennis racket and she say “Oh, you. heheh” and Jim would give you a wink and say, “Fair play ol’ Chap”.

Any way, i digress. You take the centrelink recipients away from their homes, So, the mother and father are in barracks, what happens to the children? who is going to take care of them? No, they go too? Uproot them from their school and friends? Oh, thats right, get a jerb.

Compulsory job search, on centrelink you have to apply for ten jobs a fortnight, you want a stub a week, You want to reduce the amount of jobs they should search for??

And the last point, remove their right to vote? So now you are promoting tyranny. You haven’t really thought this through very much, have you Bob?

Blind Freddy says:

08:36am | 13/03/12

“To Wauker. Yes.This was sent to me by one of my sons and adjusted a little to fit my mood this morning. But Hell, does THAT really matter?”

I don’t know about Wauker, but it matters to me. Plagarists should never bang on about individuality. If it weren’t for the ideas of others fools like you would be mute.

What a load of simplistic rubbish- you would be a Liberal voter - no?

Shane From Melbourne says:

08:54am | 13/03/12

@Bob Stewart- Would these rules apply to the middle class family welfare junkies that accept government handouts? I’m all for those who are receiving government payments not being able to vote, Just realize that there won’t be many voters left (mostly singles and childless couples who do get anything from the government)

ausspud says:

11:59am | 13/03/12

You have my vote Bob,but only if I’m in charge of immigration.

Wauker says:

03:18pm | 13/03/12

@ Blind Freddy, and you are one who believes that the government owes them everything?

jay-ded says:

06:32am | 13/03/12

Sounds like your cat might be bored Kerryn. 

As for the journalism degree, it’s never a risk to learn.  Even if you don’t do anything with the degree, just the satisfaction in achieving it makes it all worth while.  There are always websites that look for reviews of sports, music etc.  Don’t think they pay you for it though.  You will however get free entry into the gig of your choice if your previous reviews are good - and you probably don’t need a degree to do that.

RED says:

10:10am | 13/03/12

Depends what your version of “pay off” means. I know plenty that graduated and headed out to the middle of nowhere to work for 30k a year. Some love it because they do it for the sheer enjoyment of writing and feel they are making a vital contribution to the world. Personally I’m far more materialistic and couldn’t think of anything worse.
There’s an assumption that journalists are well paid and the ones who you know probably are. The problem is that for every one of them there’s 100 you’ve never heard of only just hitting the median wage after a decade or more of work.

jay-ded says:

06:50am | 13/03/12

Because they make a loud noise when they are fired. 

adam says:

06:53am | 13/03/12

Media coverage of the relatively rare gun crime instances, without mention the guns involved are generally illegal, and an over representation of the US style gansta culture.

Also we are running out of things to be frightened of.

Guns are merely things, items or tools if you will. Be afraid (or not) of the person using that tool I reckon

OchreBunyip says:

06:57am | 13/03/12

Isn’t it strange that, with guns being made harder to get for law-abiding citizens, our police have been progressively more heavily armed?

M says:

07:29am | 13/03/12

But why is everyone so anti gun? Every time the topic comes up here there’s a cascade of people saying they don’t like them, they should be banned outright, and that they have no place in Modern Society. Even Tory said in an article that she doesn’t agree with a reletive of hers owning guns.

Why is that? What is everyone’s beef?

M says:

07:32am | 13/03/12

@ Ochre Bunyip, the militarization of our police confuses me. Why do they need to walk around armed to the teeth like some para military organisation? Do they want to play soldiers without having to actually go over seas?

What purpose does it serve besides intimidating the public?

iansand says:

07:46am | 13/03/12

Projection of force. 

A nutter with a gun can do a lot more damage than a nutter with a knife.  How many drive by stabbings have there been?

marley says:

07:46am | 13/03/12

People are afraid of guns because we’re not a frontier society any more, and the vast majority of people have never touched or fired a gun of any kind in their lives. People fear what they don’t know.

Plus, we see on TV the consequences of guns being used in criminal activities, and we read about murder rates in gun-crazy US vs tightly regulated Australia or Canada. 

And we all know plenty of people who would be dangerous with a block of wood in their hands, never mind a firearm.  Irrational, drug-addicted, just plain angry or mean, we all know people who could go off at the drop of a hat.

So, we figure, most of us don’t need guns, and some of us definitely shouldn’t have access to them.  And there’s no very effective way of screening the nutters who shouldn’t have guns from the solid citizens who can be trusted with them.  So it’s safer to keep a tight lid on gun licencing.

I’m not personally in favour of banning firearms, but I don’t have a problem with the current restrictions on them.  So maybe the question should be, why do people who don’t live in the country and don’t need to shoot feral pigs or dogs, want access to guns?

adam says:

07:51am | 13/03/12

“What purpose does it serve besides intimidating the public?”

Thats exactly the purpose M

Jane2 says:

07:57am | 13/03/12

@M the militarization obviously isnt very intimidating as cops keep getting physically assaulted. Cops may have the weapons but they are highly discouraged to use them and the general population knows it. Young guys seem to think its ok to take a swing at a cop as they know that the worst that will happen to them is they spend a night in jail and get a minor assault charge that will be a fine and a good behaviour bond. The cop can not use battons or guns or tasers without getting much flack from the general population.

Stop ham stringing our police forces and they wouldnt need to try and intimidate through looking heavily armed.

fml says:

07:58am | 13/03/12

Hey Marley,

We agree on something!

“why do people who don’t live in the country and don’t need to shoot feral pigs or dogs, want access to guns? ”

subotic says:

08:04am | 13/03/12

I’m afraid of a government, who, just like Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist Party, disarmed the population so that when the shit really hit the fan, there was absolutely no chance of being able to either defend yourself or actively fight back.

That’s a hell of a lot more scary than a bloody gun will ever be….

M says:

08:06am | 13/03/12

@ Marley, because we’re supposedly a free society made up of responsible adults who should be able to choose to legally pursue a passtime if they wish.

On one hand you say you don’t have a problem with gun laws as they are, then you question the motives of people who want guns for reason other than pest control. What are you afraid of?

Max Power says:

08:07am | 13/03/12

Marley: people might want to have guns so they can participate in shooting as a sport at one of the many rifle and target ranges in Australia.
Cars kill more people than guns in Australia, yet it seems every moron can get a licence, whether they should be allowed to or not. Maybe it is time access to cars becomes heavily restricted.
More people drown each year than there are killed by guns. Maybe it is time pool ownership is heavily restricted.

The government only want guns out of society because it gives the govt all the power. People only want guns out of society because they are stupid enough to believe the crap peddled by the govt.

NicoleG says:

08:21am | 13/03/12

OMG! iansand I suggest you sit down and hold firmly on to your chair…..............I agree with you! My thoughts exactly. Gah!

M says:

08:36am | 13/03/12

@ Iansand, that’s true about a nutter with a gun. There was a piece on the 7:30 report the other night about a police officer who confused her glock for a taser, shot a mentally unstable man who posed no risk to anyone other than himself, and screamed “Taser, Taser, Taser” as she unloaded a clip of 9mm rounds into the man. The subsequent investigation by the police covered much of this up.

And these are the sorts of people we trust to use guns?

M says:

08:40am | 13/03/12

So far not one person has been able to tell me why they want guns banned besides a few vague lines about certain people not having access to them.

Certain people are already barred from having access to them. Criminals are barred for instance. As are the mentally unstable.

What’s your issue again? I think Tory may be the only one able to enlighten me as to why certain people think certain other people should not have legal and restricted access to firearms.

Knemon says:

08:48am | 13/03/12

@ iansand - “A nutter with a gun can do a lot more damage than a nutter with a knife”

That may be true Ian, but more people die from knives than they do from guns, and I believe that applies the world over.  Perhaps we should ban knives and while we’re at it, ban motor vehicles.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current series/tandi/401-420/tandi417.aspx

See homicide.

TimB says:

08:50am | 13/03/12

Try not to go into shock Nicole, but check out iansand’s comment on Jim Green’s pile of garbage.

He nailed Jim’s epic failure of logic brilliantly. I couldn’t help but applaud.

Just one of those days I guess.

iansand says:

08:55am | 13/03/12

NicoleG - Keep thinking and you will find we agree on a lot of things.  Repeat the party political crap and I will keep laughing at you.

subotic says:

09:40am | 13/03/12

M, not everyone is afraid of guns.

I grew up in suburban Brisbane before the government did their knee jerk reaction to a singular event in Tasmania and as a teenager had guns and had access to decent calibre weaponry. My grandfather collected guns, my family had guns, and I was never afraid of having guns in the house.

But I’ve always been afraid of political knee jerk reactions designed to restrict the general public’s access to personal protection.

M says:

10:11am | 13/03/12

@ Subiotic, I know not everyone is afraid of guns. I’m a licenced owner, as are my 3 sisters.

I simply want to try and understand the objections against them and calls to ban them from the great unwashed.

jay-ded says:

10:52am | 13/03/12

@M.  My father always had a rifle in his closet.  We lived in the country and owned a service station that had a nightbell.  Every time the bell went off, Dad would grab his rifle, place a few bullets in his pocket and go and open the servo so that travellers could fill up with petrol at 2am in the morning.

Am I afraid of guns?  No.
Do I see the need for guns in our country?  In some instances yes.  Like the one above and also for shooting wild pigs, wild dogs, kangaroos etc in farming areas.
Should everyone that’s not a froot loop own a gun?  No.  There is no need for them in our society.  Why?  For example, take a look at yesterdays news where a boy shot his sister because a gun was left in the car where they could get at it (by a Police Officer no less).  Not everyone is responsible. 
My father taught all of us kids how to shoot, how to clean the rifle and how to handle the rifle.  His was very strict with rules regarding it.  It was never placed in his cupboard loaded and he never let on where he hid the bullets.  We were never allowed to touch it without his supervision.  Would other parents be just as strict and responsible?

M says:

11:23am | 13/03/12

@ Jayded, what does the incompetance of our police have to do with allowing citizens access to firearms?

No need for them in society? Are you saying that no one should be allowed to shoot for any reason other than pest control? Where does that put the thousands of recreational sports shooters and olympic atheletes? Are they to be denied their right to enjoy themselves on weekends because they don’t need to shoot rabbits, and therefore in your own little world, they have no reason to own them?

Try again sunshine.

Coop says:

12:44pm | 13/03/12

If a gun is a tool for use in the management of a farm etc then I have no problem as long as those possessing them are registered and the weapons is appropraitely stored.
Target shooting is not a sport…play darts if you need this.
I dislike guns for the very same reason the Colt guy loves them. “They are an equaliser”
My problem with guns is that they provide idiots, cowards and the confidence challenged a sense of power they wouldnt naturally have or need to solve a problem.
The fact that criminals have them doesn’t mean we should distribute more.
Well balanced people do not need weapons to bolster their confidence or competence.

Wynston Cruso says:

12:54pm | 13/03/12

“So far not one person has been able to tell me why they want guns banned besides a few vague lines about certain people not having access to them.”

And they won’t be able to provide any reasonable reasons M. Bottom line is, the people who we don’t want using guns will likely be able to get them quite easily anyway, while the law abiders who want to use guns for recreation are heavily restricted in their purchase and use. The criminals have them so why can’t we have the right to fly through the air in slow motion whilst firing some rounds from our matching pistoliers?

M says:

01:47pm | 13/03/12

@ Coop, target shooting is a sport, and not one of the people I know (me included) takes part in it to re-affirm our manhoods.

If you’d ever done any target shooting you’d know this.

marley says:

01:51pm | 13/03/12

@M - possibly the reason no one has explained why they want guns banned is that most of us don’t.  Regulated, yes, banned, no. 

As I said, I don’t have an issue with people in rural areas having guns:  they need them.  And I don’t have a problem with city folk having guns for target shooting:  I’ve even done a bit of that myself in my (very) distant youth.  And even city folk go hunting sometimes.  Those are valid reasons for having guns.  The argument that we need them to protect ourselves against a potentially malevolent government, however, is not.  This is not Afghanistan or Syria.  And if the US is anything to go by,  the household firearm is more likely to be used, accidentally or intentionally, on a family member rather than on the burglar breaking into the house. 

If people want to own guns, have the training to store and handle them safely, and meet the legal requirements for gun ownership, be my guest.  But don’t ask me to support broadening the licencing requirements.  For most people, guns are not a necessity and that’s the way I want to see it stay.

M says:

02:38pm | 13/03/12

I’ve never argued that we need them to protect us against the government.

subotic says:

08:09am | 14/03/12

I did….

TimB says:

07:00am | 13/03/12

I’m telling you John, use tinfoil . I cannot recommend it enough.

MarkS says:

08:07am | 13/03/12

Tinfoil is great stuff, stops the CIO mind control rays.

Seriously the US fleet could have issues if Iran closed off the Strait of Hormuz. It is a narrow waterway & Iran is believed to have SS-N-22 anti-ship missiles. Very nasty, super sonic, sea skiming, 120 km range with 320kg warhead.

subotic says:

08:34am | 13/03/12

I for one welcome our new reptillian Iranian overlords

TheRealDave says:

09:12am | 13/03/12

John, you’re an idiot.

1. Troops outside tehran - has been going around since 2003 and it still hasn’t even remotely happened yet
2. Iran wouldn’t even put up half the fight Iraq did…..and that was only a few weeks. If we could ever be bothered with them - or if they are stupid enough to build a nuke.

Shane From Melbourne says:

09:12am | 13/03/12

If you are into conspiracy theories, the one that is fashionable at the moment is that the U.S. will attack Iran because it has started selling oil for gold instead of US dollars, which sets a dangerous precedent…(my personal view is that the US would have to be insane to attack Iran)

fml says:

09:42am | 13/03/12

Well,

Israel are looking more and more likely to attempt an unprovoked attack on the Iranian nuclear installations, With the US elections in the not too distant future, Netanyahu could make a move with Obama, if wanting to be re-elected, being forced to move in and support Israel.

TheRealDave, I would think Iran would put up quite a fight, more so than the Iraqi’s, for one, The iranian people would fight for Iran, irrespective of who the leaders are.

marley says:

02:38pm | 13/03/12

@fml - well, the Iranians couldn’t beat the Iraqis, and the Americans wiped the floor with them, so the thought that the Iranians would make much of a fist of it against the Americans is, I suspect, a bit unrealistic.  That said, I’m certainly not in favour of any American intervention there.  I suspect that, left to its own devices, Iran could well run into the kind of internal discontent that seem to be so typical of the Middle East these days.

Tony of Poorakistan says:

04:02pm | 13/03/12

Shane

that’s why Rumsfield went after Saddam, apparently; he was about to start asking for Euros. Why else would you remove the only sectarian leader in the Middle East? The only one who wasn’t a Muslim nutjob?

fml says:

04:56pm | 13/03/12

“the Iranians couldn’t beat the Iraqis”

Ahh yes, was that because the americans were secretly funding both sides so they would anahilate each other? and then using the proceeds to fund an overthrow the nicuarguan government? Come on, seriously, the iran contra scandal has to be one of the blackest marks on american history, it wouldve been interesting to see what would of happened if america didnt have its greasy fingers pulling the strings only suppling enough to either side as to fund a war of attrition.

And i wouldnt say that the americans wiped the floor with the Iraqi’s, why are they still there? why are they still fighting? the declaration of the cessation of the war was announced but they are still there.

marley says:

05:57pm | 13/03/12

@fml - as I recall, the Soviets were the main suppliers for Iraq and the Chinese for Iran.  The Iran contra scandal was mickey mouse in comparison to the money and arms the other nations supplied.

And, so far as I’m aware, in two Gulf Wars the Americans knocked out the Iraqi military capacity (which is what we’re talking about) in a matter of weeks.

I’m not commenting on the rights or wrongs of any of this;  I’m just saying that the idea that the Iranians could beat the Americans when the Iraqis collapsed in no time at all is simply unrealistic.

S.L says:

07:46am | 13/03/12

3 this week and it wasn’t until Sunday arvo I got my first win. PHEW!!!!!! Saved from the nudie run!

redvixen says:

08:16am | 13/03/12

2 this week and didn’t get my first win until Sunday night.  Coming second last!  The wooden spoon will be mine, I tell ya.

Knemon says:

08:55am | 13/03/12

LOL TimB

You’re lucky I tipped the Rabbit’s!!

James1 says:

08:56am | 13/03/12

I know you are just trolling, but the idea that anyone could understand the killing of children makes me want to vomit.

Sometimes you need to think before you troll, subotic.  Otherwise someone might be forced to call DOCS on you.

Blind Freddy says:

09:09am | 13/03/12

What an empathetic soul you must be. Well done.

Shane from Melbourne says:

09:39am | 13/03/12

@subiotic- Considering that a single soldier has negated years and years and millions of dollars worth of US nation building in Afghanistan and significantly increased the recruitment and propaganda of Islamic extremism within the Islamic world, odds are that the US is even more pissed than the Afghans…..

subotic says:

10:40am | 13/03/12

You airlift some poor 18 year old kid from the US Southern Delta away from his X-Box and MTV to the Middle East, drop him in a desert amongst people who hate this kid and his culture, tell him to kill people, and then subject him to this crap for a number of tours of duty and expect him NOT to flip out one day?

Don’t get me wrong, I feel just as sorry for this tortured kid as much as the families that were the victims of this mess. It’s just that once again it will all be this kid’s fault, not the situation he’s been dropped in to.

To have that mess not affect you in itself is a miracle. I don’t know how we don’t get more of this.

@James1, I have 2 daughters, so don’t think I don’t empathise. I was just saying I can understand how this kid could flip.

@Blind Freddy, yes, yes, it’s always about everyone else except the American soldier caught in a war he probably really doesn’t want to fight in the 1st place.

subotic says:

10:55am | 13/03/12

@Shane from Melbourne, I think the US government should be asking itself a whole heap of questions in connection with this young man’s state of mental health, as well as how do you repatriate him back into normal society once you’ve chewed him up and spat him out.

That guy is a victim of this stupid war too.

Blind Freddy says:

11:26am | 13/03/12

@Subotic

The “kid” (as you call him)  has been identified as a staff sergeant in the Stryker brigade. He is a 38-year-old married father of two on his first deployment to Afghanistan after three previous deployments in Iraq.

The oldest “kid” on earth?

Slothy says:

12:04pm | 13/03/12

Subotic - last I checked US doesn’t have conscription. This kid volunteered to take the risk he’d be airlifted away from his x-box and in to the middle of a war.

You’ll forgive me if my sympathy is limited.

subotic says:

12:13pm | 13/03/12

@blind freddy, guess I stand corrected.

*golf clap*

gobsmack says:

12:31pm | 13/03/12

@subotic
So you would fully support criminals getting lighter sentences if they convince the judge they had a troubled upbringing?  Or a woman being acquitted of murder if she convinces the judge she was the victim of ongoing domestic abuse?

James1 says:

12:56pm | 13/03/12

Don’t mind me, sub.  I’m just in a bad mood, and shouldn’t be taking it out on you.  Apologies, good sir.

subotic says:

01:18pm | 13/03/12

@gobsmack -

So you would fully support criminals getting lighter sentences if they convince the judge they had a troubled upbringing? 

Depends on the charge and the “troubled upbringing”. 15 year old Aboriginal boy in Katherine NT steals a car and smashes it. Comes from a family of 8 kids. No education. Under fed. Mother is an alcoholic. You wanna put him in the electric chair gobsmack? Make an example of him so the rest of “them” learn?

Or a woman being acquitted of murder if she convinces the judge she was the victim of ongoing domestic abuse?

Possibly. I wouldn’t say murder wasn’t ever justified. Can murder be self defence?

jay-ded says:

08:44am | 13/03/12

You need to get out a bit more Deano.

NicoleG says:

09:09am | 13/03/12

I love her Deano! She gives me ideas

HappyG says:

10:55am | 13/03/12

Deano. I got the whole series from a mate who ” obtained” them electronically.Great show made even better by being able to watch the whole thing ad free. Nothing as sexy as a cold hearted blond bent on getting even. Keep watching it gets better.

M says:

09:29am | 13/03/12

It’s alright Simon, that’s why we’re helping the US with their war on terror, so uncle sam can come and save us if our neighbours ever come to invade.

AdamC says:

10:23am | 13/03/12

Very sobering, Simon. One wonders why the media is so fixated on sex scandals and exaggerated ‘cultural problems’ at Defence when we have major platforms that are simply unavailable to defend the country.

ausspud says:

12:12pm | 13/03/12

A couple of nukes should fix that problem,it’s either that or our Colins class submarines which can be heard from a mile away.

SimonFromLakemba says:

02:09pm | 13/03/12

$26Billion on a ‘Defence Force’ and all its good for is Indonesia!

A bit worrying since you could argue we are the most powerful in the region, albeit if you include us with China.

gobsmack says:

09:17am | 13/03/12

You only want to read what you agree with?
Is this your idea of the “best conversation”:
“Ooooh, I know.”
“Yes, isn’t terrible.”
“It’s awful.”

TimB says:

09:56am | 13/03/12

Agree with Gobsmack here. When the Left posts rubbish (Eg. Jim Green) simply amuse yourself by tearing their silly arguments to shreds/

Gobsmack, your point makes for a good argument against those who want to clamp down on News Ltd too.

gobsmack says:

10:32am | 13/03/12

@TimB
There is a difference between opinion pieces and what purports to be accurate and fair reporting.
The reason I read the Punch is that most of the posted comments come from “the Right”.  I think it is educational to read the opinions of those with whom I generally do not agree.  Sometimes I’m even persuaded by their arguments.

subotic says:

01:27pm | 13/03/12

Yes, bring back them olden days Richard, when the Punch was more right wing, men smoke a pipe, spades were spades, and Australia’s population wasn’t made up of 73% New Zealanders.

Rite on, man!

Richard says:

01:58pm | 13/03/12

Well today, there’s just an overdose of left-wing snobbery in the articles here in my opinion. Every single piece is by a confirmed leftist, (apart from Donnelly), and its all a bit too much. I wouldn’t complain except that its happening more and more these days. Would it kill the editors here to ensure that there was a 50-50 balance between left and right. Yes, it probably would, seeing as their all so keen to die in a ditch to support their beloved Labor/Greens/Socialist Alliance parties.

Richard says:

02:18pm | 13/03/12

Let me put it this way: I gladly pay for my digital subscription to the Australian every month, in fact I’m supremely happy to have an opportunity to support them, because I think they are courageously doing a good job. However when the punch goes behind the pay wall, I very seriously doubt I’ll be fronting up with any cash for them due to the despicable editorial policies they’ve been running of late, which have been getting worse and worse for over a year now.

gobsmack says:

02:52pm | 13/03/12

@Richard
Can you explain what is “courageous” about The Australian constantly pandering to its conservative subscribers?  Aren’t you lot supposed to be in the majority these days?

TimB says:

05:41pm | 13/03/12

@ Gobsmack- Maybe it has something to do with the government threatening media outlets that dont toe the Government line.

And media has always had bias going back to the days of the printing press. If there’s any outright lies (from either side) they’re picked up pretty quick.

TheRealDave says:

09:14am | 13/03/12

what ...it took you this long to realise he’s a complete and utter nutcase??

Katter has been a fruit loop for years now. The senile old clown should have been put out to pasture long ago.

jay-ded says:

09:34am | 13/03/12

Who does that leave us to vote for nossy?  Ms I’ll sell everything QLD owns, or Mr I’ll build shit and give the contracts to my friends and family?

nossy says:

09:43am | 13/03/12

@jay-ded   that move to NZ might be a good idea jay-ded!  hah no the choices this election are sad indeed - best of luck.

nossy says:

09:48am | 13/03/12

@TheRealDave hes always been a bit eccentric TRD but now hes has gone over the top and is running down good people so I abandon scum like that.

Coop says:

12:50pm | 13/03/12

Nossy… have you been reading that Karma Sutra you accuse others of?

nossy says:

09:45am | 13/03/12

@fairsfair   hahhaah your back alrready fairs!  I was going to run a comp to see who could pick your return date but too late!  hope your new job is buzzing along well.

TimB says:

09:47am | 13/03/12

Hey Fairs! Day off today? Or are they letting you onto the internet?

How’s the new job?

Bone to pick with you BTW. North Queensland Cowboys, totally not doing what I tip them to do. I’m holding you responsible .

fairsfair says:

10:14am | 13/03/12

Yeah Nossy… what did I make… 3 weeks? I can’t remember.

Job is fantastic. I havn’t felt this happy since like 2008. Super! I just feel like I am in a routine already and having forced morning tea breaks and lunches is something to get used to. The days are zooming by… I haven’t looked at the Punch once though - uber proud.

Go the boys… this year is our year! When I was in Townsville a month or so ago I was looking around my friend’s new block and Aaron Payne ran past…. he was looking pretty fit!

Ben C says:

10:36am | 13/03/12

Hey hey fairs, hope you’re loving the new job. How’s the budding romance?

Aitch B says:

11:17am | 13/03/12

@fairsfair

Good to have you drop in, ff. Pleased to hear that you’re happy with your job and life in general.

Some of us should be so lucky!!!

fairsfair says:

12:18pm | 13/03/12

LOL Ben C - I had actually forgotten about that. I am over my initial wedding planning obsession and had just decided I will see how it pans out. Back to Brownsville in a month or so, so I think I will have a conversation at that point. I don’t like the idea of friending on facebook and contacting by phone… so I will just wait for face to face. Cos thats how I roll

Plus.. my new found gym obsession is starting pay off. Feeling much better about myself (though I did break my foot during RPM but thats a whole other story). I’ll be hotstuff in no time.

Yes I do feel very lucky Aitch. A family friend passed away over the weekend (she was only 30 and had battled Cancer since 21) and it really has put some things into perspective for me. People bitch and moan about their “problems” (myself the biggest) and this fantastic person didn’t even get the opportunity to live. So I flatly refuse to complain about menial things, when like most Australians - I am so very fortunate.

ausspud says:

12:20pm | 13/03/12

And a hoy hoy to you fairs,good to see things are going well for you.But seriously gf after three long week’s the only thing you can talk about is the weather

fairsfair says:

01:00pm | 13/03/12

Hey, its been a delayed wet this year - its exciting!

Though… this did happen in my hometown overnight:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/political-commentary-turns-nasty-up-north-with-vandals-attacking-mulgrave-mps-electorate-office/story-fnbt5t29-1226297963467

Its sad to see, and perhaps not even done by someone from Gordonvale. Rather concerning, given Pitt’s office is directly opposite the Cop Shop and on his lunchbreak he no doubt gets to play here http://www.pawseyprowse.com/la_cane_toad_world.html (woeful). I am a bit annoyed that the ALP have linked this to KAP - there is no evidence at this point and I am ‘ken over the QLD election campaign. Not a single advert is about policy - this time, they are ALL attack ads on other parties. My vote was up for grabs (KAP/LNP) until earlier this week. That KAP anti-gay advert has sealed the deal for me - LNP it is.

subotic says:

10:50am | 13/03/12

Hey Bob, ever think that maybe this kid has a few mental health problems that might need attending to as a result of being dropped into that hell hole, rather than just being some dumb redneck from the Ozarks who lost the plot for a minute?

Blind Freddy says:

12:10pm | 13/03/12

@Subotic

Your “kid” is a 38 year old father of two real kids FFS.

subotic says:

12:50pm | 13/03/12

@blind freddy, you really are blind. You already posted that above.

Next time I’ll use Braille, FFS.

Blind Freddy says:

01:28pm | 13/03/12

@Subotic

Just making sure that the “kid” thing didn’t stick. I noticed that other Punchers are also using the term.

subotic says:

02:15pm | 13/03/12

subotic - setting Punch comment standards since 1969.

AdamC says:

03:47pm | 13/03/12

Robert S McCormick, that is how the system always works. Think about it. Would you want your servicepeople subject to Afghan justice? Let us not forget, this soldier’s guilt has not been established.

You are coming across as one of those people who will take any opportunity to do a spot of America bashing.

Ben C says:

10:54am | 13/03/12

Abbott definitely needs to pick up his game - like you said nossy, 18 months to go. The last 18 months have been a long time for everyone, the next 18 I doubt will be any different.

Fun and games - but not for the general populace.

Knemon says:

12:43pm | 13/03/12

@ nossy

Our new foreign minister Mr Bob Carr, this morning, likened Mr Abbott to “a cheapskate hypnotist in a rundown circus”.

I got a good belly laugh out of that.

SimonFromLakemba says:

02:13pm | 13/03/12

@Knemon

Was gold wasn’t it!. As far as QT goes, Labor has it all over the Libs.

Most be pretty humbling for Abbott knowing the only reason Libs are ahead is because they ‘aren’t the other guys’.

davo says:

02:19pm | 13/03/12

nossy
18 months to maintain the rage
Greens 10-12% still
Katter party on the rise
Labour getting a free kick with the Rinehart saga
Another hung parliment?
and poor Tony can’t negotiate
” How sweet it is”

fairsfair says:

01:46pm | 13/03/12

Sorry to hear of that James1. Poor little tyke - it is quite frightening when you think that it could cause mobility issues in time etc etc. Sadly, you can’t bubble wrap kids though. This seems like a very unfortunate accident and I hope that you don’t in anyway blame yourself. Because kids will be kids (so they say).

My brother was a deadset doofus as a kid. Mum used to have issues and worry about him bigtime. He would always do things like fall of a tyre stack landing on corrugated iron with his forearm, play matchbox cars on top of a large rock and fall onto conrete garden edging with his forehead… there was nothing mum could do to protect him. He was just an unco and had really bad luck. He mostly developed as normal

I wish her all the best for a speedy recovery and the one thing I have learned since dad’s stroke is that physio works - get as much of it as you can possibly afford during recovery - it certainly pays off and sadly the public systems only afford you the bare minimum (which is quite understandable).

JC says:

12:39pm | 13/03/12

There was deffinately parts I loved in ME3 mor ethan the other games in the trillogy. But the way that game ended destroyed so many years of immersion for me, it’s as if Peter Moleneux assumed direct control of some Bioware employees (ugh..sorry).
Honestly that ending couldn’t have been a mistake, they actually had to sit down and say “yes, this is the best possible ending we can make within our budget and time constraints”.
I’m just worried the next step for the mass effect universe is an MMO, oh god..

TimB says:

12:42pm | 13/03/12

Couldn’t help you Shen, I haven’t played it .

I seem to be passing on that entire side of gaming. Mass Effect, Bioshock, the Arkham games, Skyrim, etc etc.

I think it might have more to do with my focus on the Nintendo side of things. Because all of those games representbig hits in the PS3/360/PC category., and I just don’t have the time or money to indulge in titles for so many platforms.

As a result a game from that category to pull me over I have to *really* want it.  Space Marine, Portal 2, Battlefield 3, Diablo 3. Stuff like that. Other than that I just won’t bother.

Ben C says:

12:55pm | 13/03/12

Good to see you’re still kicking Shen, how’s the shoulder and the physio? Still recovering from kncoking yourself out?

Never played Mass Effect, never really been my sort of game. How does it compare to the WTF ending of The Sopranos?

nossy says:

02:42pm | 13/03/12

@ausspud   brilliant suff there ausspud!

Sarahh says:

03:27pm | 13/03/12

Whoa!  That made me feel very small!