Changes

604 bytes added ,  03:37, December 27, 2007
Line 295: Line 295:  
::: I mean emotional dependence.  [[Gun control]] directly requires voters to depend more on government for protection, and that causes support for bigger government.  It's an emotional dependence and plainly affects how people vote.  And that, of course, is why leftists push [[gun control]] so much.  The cause-and-effect in the political results in [[Australia]] and elsewhere is unmistakable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:26, 25 December 2007 (EST)
 
::: I mean emotional dependence.  [[Gun control]] directly requires voters to depend more on government for protection, and that causes support for bigger government.  It's an emotional dependence and plainly affects how people vote.  And that, of course, is why leftists push [[gun control]] so much.  The cause-and-effect in the political results in [[Australia]] and elsewhere is unmistakable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:26, 25 December 2007 (EST)
 
:::: The problem I have with that is one that I've already alluded to:  Before gun control in Australia, they always did rely on the government (i.e. the police) for protection.  They didn't rely on guns, because most people did not carry guns.  I would say from my own observations that there has been ''no'' increase in reliance on government for protection because of gun control.  Furthermore, for all practical purposes the police forces are state-run, but gun control was instigated by the ''federal'' government, so your argument is effectively saying that the federal government introduced gun control to increase reliance on state governments, which is absurd to anyone knowing much about Australian politics.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:48, 25 December 2007 (EST)
 
:::: The problem I have with that is one that I've already alluded to:  Before gun control in Australia, they always did rely on the government (i.e. the police) for protection.  They didn't rely on guns, because most people did not carry guns.  I would say from my own observations that there has been ''no'' increase in reliance on government for protection because of gun control.  Furthermore, for all practical purposes the police forces are state-run, but gun control was instigated by the ''federal'' government, so your argument is effectively saying that the federal government introduced gun control to increase reliance on state governments, which is absurd to anyone knowing much about Australian politics.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:48, 25 December 2007 (EST)
 +
:::::Philip, do you have any stats showing the level of gun ownership before and after 1996?  My guess is that it reduced from a small fraction of the population to a small fraction of a small fraction of the population. What's more, pre-96 I would imagine the vast majority of gun-ownership was in rural areas, but the swing against Howard in 2007 was significant in the cities also.  So to argue that the change has been so significant to lead to some sort of dependence on government is bizarre.  [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]]  [[User talk:Ferret|<sub>Nice old chat</sub>]] 22:37, 26 December 2007 (EST)
    
:Andy,
 
:Andy,
Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
875

edits