I read the news today (oh boy) - Current world events | Page 141 | Fab Forum | The Beatles Bible

QuarryMan said

Beatlebug said

Oh, come on. Like that’s going to happen. Everyone knows more conventional wars pay better.

  

Indeed. Out of curiosity, are you against this war (because of your libertarian leanings) or for it (because of your pro-Trump/patriotic leanings)? Obviously your position will no doubt be more nuanced, but I imagine it probably would fall along those lines…

(If you want to stay impartial as a moderator, that’s fine btw )

  

I know you didn’t ask me so please do ignore this post, but…

As a moderator, I’m very much against this war

I can’t get over the fact that so far in this bushfire season, more than 6300000 hectares has been burned so far (the size of West Virginia, or the size of Latvia), at least 2500 buildings destroyed (but that number will actually be higher because many communities are totally cut off), and so far 25 people have died.

And we’ve still got at least 8 weeks of these fires to go…

I’m astounded at how badly our government is handling this – every single way you could stuff up leading the country through a disaster, Scott Morrison has done it – and his cabinet is just as bad.

I’m well over 300km from the East Gippsland fires, and the smoke today in Melbourne is all over the news – much worse air quality here than Beijing today. And the scary fact that it will be many, many, many times worse in the affected areas. 

I’ve been short of breath today, so I think my asthma has come back – how can the hundreds of thousands of those more affected than me be coping… 

[In response to post 2814 above, obviously] – this is what happens when you forget to finish your post for three hours]

1) If by “gun lobby” you mean “organizations of concerned citizens…” I mean, yes, that is technically a gun lobby, but you make it sound like it’s the evil NRA overlords.
2) These gun laws do not address the real problems faced by many communities, such as rampant poverty and crime; instead, they seem like a band-aid solution at best, or a power grab at worst. They won’t do half as much to prevent criminals from committing crimes as they will to make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to arm themselves against criminals, wild animals (much of Virginia is quite rural), or even a hypothetical tyrannical government.
3) Oh no! Those silly gun-toting conservatards won’t be able to buy more than 12 guns a year! How tragic. Yes, but what if they need to buy a couple of guns in a short period of time? What if they just want to? Maybe it’s Christmas shopping*. At any rate, it’s not the government’s place to tell them they can’t without any reason. It’s not like that limit is going to stop one ill-doer from getting one gun and shooting people with it. One gun, or one knife, or even a heavy lead pipe, is all it takes for someone with homicidal intent. Sure, a gun makes it easier to kill more people with less effort, but you can do that with a revolver.
4) I’d like to see where you got this mass shooting/gunshot wound data. The definition of “mass shooting” is incredibly nebulous, and far too many gunshot wounds are self-inflicted. And if you’re putting a gun to your head, you’ve got other issues than just the gun.

*yOu’ll sHoOt yEr EyE oUt KiD

Maybe you want to buy a couple of different kinds of handguns for different purposes, and you need them both sooner rather than later because you fear an imminent threat to your personal safety and/or property in different situations.

The point is, it’s not the government’s place to tell you, no, sorry, you can’t buy more than one a month. It’s a pointless restriction anyway.