Is Australia the real Land of the Free? Britain and the US, may have had their time.

Australia is a nation that wants for nothing, it could be completely self sufficient if required.

As a result it is free in ways the US and European Countries are not and now it is the only Country standing up to the Saudi's in relation to human rights for a Saudi citizen.

https://www.wtsp.com/article/news/nation-world/australia-considering-resettlement-for-runaway-saudi-woman/67-a780004f-9840-4f81-82bf-47bab1bccee3

Thoughts?

Major props to Australia for standing up to the Saudis.

My thought is that your link doesn't really correlate to the thread title. I mean yeah it's cool that they did that for her but it's also not something unique to Australia- most western countries allow refugees and asylum, even if its not Saudi specific. I also wouldn't really consider this standing up to SA. AFAIK their government hasn't even made an official statement about the incident. I think they have more pressing issues then a 18 year old girl running away from home.

Not to dig on Australia. It just feels to me like this story is overblown- a testament to how (relatively) uneventful geopolitics has been lately.

From what I understand she already had intentions of choosing Australia as her destination to seek asylum...having applied & granted a tourist visa to enter the country.

It was only when she was detained that she used social media to ask for help from other countries.

I do believe our govt is taking her claims seriously & helping her seek asylum as quick as possible.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
My thought is that your link doesn't really correlate to the thread title. I mean yeah it's cool that they did that for her but it's also not something unique to Australia- most western countries allow refugees and asylum, even if its not Saudi specific. I also wouldn't really consider this standing up to SA. AFAIK their government hasn't even made an official statement about the incident. I think they have more pressing issues then a 18 year old girl running away from home.

Not to dig on Australia. It just feels to me like this story is overblown- a testament to how (relatively) uneventful geopolitics has been lately.

Australia stood up to them as did Canada and a few others, now she is under UN protection she is pretty safe. Big difference to the Khashoggi (sp) apologising from the US in particular. When I say US I don't mean the people I mean Trump.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
From what I understand she already had intentions of choosing Australia as her destination to seek asylum...having applied & granted a tourist visa to enter the country.

It was only when she was detained that she used social media to ask for help from other countries.

I do believe our govt is taking her claims seriously & helping her seek asylum as quick as possible.

Unfortunately, Australia does not have freedom of speech. Their internet laws are among the most strict. Their gun laws are among the most strict. And their "freedom to assemble" laws are strange/strict (it's been documented that you cannot go anywhere on public streets/sidewalks - police will escort you out of neighborhoods if you "don't belong).

As far freedom goes, Australia is near the bottom from the G20 list. Among the most draconian and restrictive. Perhaps China, overall, is worse than Australia on the Freedometer.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Unfortunately, Australia does not have freedom of speech. Their internet laws are among the most strict. Their gun laws are among the most strict. And their "freedom to assemble" laws are strange/strict (it's been documented that you cannot go anywhere on public streets/sidewalks - police will escort you out of neighborhoods if you "don't belong).

As far freedom goes, Australia is near the bottom from the G20 list. Among the most draconian and restrictive. Perhaps China, overall, is worse than Australia on the Freedometer.

Anyway, we are talking about the propagation of personal female freedom worldwide and standing up to rich Islamic dictatorships. I'm sure you can get behind that DDM.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Australia is a nation that wants for nothing, it could be completely self sufficient if required.

As a result it is free in ways the US and European Countries are not and now it is the only Country standing up to the Saudi's in relation to human rights for a Saudi citizen.

https://www.wtsp.com/article/news/nation-world/australia-considering-resettlement-for-runaway-saudi-woman/67-a780004f-9840-4f81-82bf-47bab1bccee3

Thoughts?

The US is still superior to Australia. And as has been mentioned: nope, you aren't the land of the free if you don't have free speech. You're in the land of the snowflakes.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Unfortunately, Australia does not have freedom of speech. Their internet laws are among the most strict. Their gun laws are among the most strict. And their "freedom to assemble" laws are strange/strict (it's been documented that you cannot go anywhere on public streets/sidewalks - police will escort you out of neighborhoods if you "don't belong).

As far freedom goes, Australia is near the bottom from the G20 list. Among the most draconian and restrictive. Perhaps China, overall, is worse than Australia on the Freedometer.

Yeah the gun thing is why it's b*tch slap worthy every time a leftist says they don't wanna take guns away and then cites Australia as a place that is doing the right thing on guns lol.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
You see many would argue strict Gun Laws are a good idea and promote other freedoms like life.

And those some would be wrong. As I outlined, the data shows Australian homicides increased after their strict gun laws went into effect. In fact, their strict gun laws still have little to no impact on their homicides even over 20 years later. And to be clear, the "little to no impact" is either a 0 change or an increase, not decrease. There's not even hope that there was a slight decrease in the homicide rate for those who want to argue for the decades long cultural shift in violence after a gun ban. The changes in the homicides rates were slight higher, off and on, over the last 2 decades. At best, there appear to be no correlation between their gun laws and their homicide rates.

This is a fail on the freedometer.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
I'm not getting into a post stats type war as we both know opinions and studies on this differ

That's also where you're wrong: the stats don't differ on this. There's no debate to be had. People who think there is room for a debate on this topic must necessarily ignore the facts to support an anti-gun position. Which is rather asinine, wouldn't you agree?

Originally posted by dadudemon
And those some would be wrong. As I outlined, the data shows Australian homicides increased after their strict gun laws went into effect. In fact, their strict gun laws still have little to no impact on their homicides even over 20 years later. And to be clear, the "little to no impact" is either a 0 change or an increase, not decrease. There's not even hope that there was a slight decrease in the homicide rate for those who want to argue for the decades long cultural shift in violence after a gun ban. The changes in the homicides rates were slight higher, off and on, over the last 2 decades. At best, there appear to be no correlation between their gun laws and their homicide rates.

This is a fail on the freedometer.

That's also where you're wrong: the stats don't differ on this. There's no debate to be had. People who think there is room for a debate on this topic must necessarily ignore the facts to support an anti-gun position. Which is rather asinine, wouldn't you agree?

Yeah, but no,

https://qz.com/437015/mapped-the-us-states-with-the-most-gun-owners-and-most-gun-deaths/

but what about New Mexico?

We could go on forever,

Originally posted by Putinbot1
We could go on forever,

YouTube video

Originally posted by Putinbot1
I, kind of disagree tbh, most countries avoid pissing the Saudi Arabians off

I feel like you're trying to force a narrative that hasn't really been corroborated by anything that's actually happened.

Also- this is more about my personal tastes- but I think it's kind of shady to try to politicize this for the sake of a narrative. If you wanted to make a thread about Saudi Arabia's awful human rights record and our enabling of it you could have just done so. I don't see the point of trying to use this incident as ammunition.

Australia > America solely because of Knifey-spoony.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Yeah, but no,

https://qz.com/437015/mapped-the-us-states-with-the-most-gun-owners-and-most-gun-deaths/

but what about New Mexico?

We could go on forever,

I understand that there's nothing to debate regarding Australia. Which is why you've introduced a new topic about the US to move the conversation away from Australia's restrictive laws and regulations (putting it near the bottom of the G20 on the "freedometer"😉.

But let's turn this into a debate about gun laws, gun ownership, and gun freedom in the United States because this is your thread and you've moved the goalposts in your own thread.

Regarding that article which employs an often used tactic by dishonest leftists who like to try and sneakily conflate "gun deaths" with "intentional homicide", there's a factual rebuttal for that! 🙂

1. How about not dishonestly correlating gun deaths with gun ownership and instead correlating the honest statistic of homicide rates with gun ownership rates? The point is not to stop gun deaths - that's retarded. The point is to reduce overall intentional homicide or violence. Shifting violence, like Australia did, is not the objective. Actually reducing homicides and violence is the objective.

2. How about not dishonestly sneaking in suicides with gun deaths and instead focusing on gun homicides?

3. How about not dishonestly sneaking in accidental gun deaths and instead focusing on gun homicides?

4. How about not dishonestly sneaking in police gun deaths and instead focusing on gun homicides?

And this often cited study? Well well well, do I have some news for you. Here's what they say that is often cited by anti-gun peeps:

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409

[quote]Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates (incidence rate ratio = 1.009; 95% confidence interval = 1.004, 1.014). This model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%.[/.quote]

Here's what they did to massage their data:

They used derivative figure for gun ownership rates based on suicide-to-gun-ownership. Had they used the much more accurate data from Injury Prevention (who did not use a derarvative figure based on suicide-to-gun-ownership, but instead used a sample to represent the true population statistic) instead of this very dishonest but sneaky figure, they'd see a much lower gun ownership rate and now their correlation magically disappears. Imagine that, using data that reflects true ownership rates results in their correlation evaporating. Hmm...why would they do this?

Because on this particular topic, they have a political bias:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-journal-of-public-health-ajph/

And they've been in hot water, before, for their data selection biases:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5343702/

If you don't read anything in my post, read and understand just this:

In the gun debate, anti-gun proponents often use the dishonest tactic of trying to correlate guns with only gun deaths (including suicide) instead of guns with homicides. If the goal is to reduce homicides, then we should look at solutions to reduce homicides. If you want to reduce Road Deaths, you don't look at just Semi-Truck (Lorry) caused deaths, you look at them all.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I understand that there's nothing to debate regarding Australia. Which is why you've introduced a new topic about the US to move the conversation away from Australia's restrictive laws and regulations (putting it near the bottom of the G20 on the "freedometer"😉.

But let's turn this into a debate about gun laws, gun ownership, and gun freedom in the United States because this is your thread and you've moved the goalposts in your own thread.

Regarding that article which employs an often used tactic by dishonest leftists who like to try and sneakily conflate "gun deaths" with "intentional homicide", there's a factual rebuttal for that! 🙂

1. How about not dishonestly correlating gun deaths with gun ownership and instead correlating the honest statistic of homicide rates with gun ownership rates? The point is not to stop gun deaths - that's retarded. The point is to reduce overall intentional homicide or violence. Shifting violence, like Australia did, is not the objective. Actually reducing homicides and violence is the objective.

2. How about not dishonestly sneaking in suicides with gun deaths and instead focusing on gun homicides?

3. How about not dishonestly sneaking in accidental gun deaths and instead focusing on gun homicides?

4. How about not dishonestly sneaking in police gun deaths and instead focusing on gun homicides?

And this often cited study? Well well well, do I have some news for you. Here's what they say that is often cited by anti-gun peeps:

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409

[quote]Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates (incidence rate ratio = 1.009; 95% confidence interval = 1.004, 1.014). This model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%.[/.quote]

Here's what they did to massage their data:

They used derivative figure for gun ownership rates based on suicide-to-gun-ownership. Had they used the much more accurate data from Injury Prevention (who did not use a derarvative figure based on suicide-to-gun-ownership, but instead used a sample to represent the true population statistic) instead of this very dishonest but sneaky figure, they'd see a much lower gun ownership rate and now their correlation magically disappears. Imagine that, using data that reflects true ownership rates results in their correlation evaporating. Hmm...why would they do this?

Because on this particular topic, they have a political bias:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-journal-of-public-health-ajph/

And they've been in hot water, before, for their data selection biases:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5343702/

If you don't read anything in my post, read and understand just this:

In the gun debate, anti-gun proponents often use the dishonest tactic of trying to correlate guns with only gun deaths (including suicide) instead of guns with homicides. If the goal is to reduce homicides, then we should look at solutions to reduce homicides. If you want to reduce Road Deaths, you don't look at just Semi-Truck (Lorry) caused deaths, you look at them all.

Bingo

Originally posted by dadudemon
Unfortunately, Australia does not have freedom of speech. Their internet laws are among the most strict. Their gun laws are among the most strict. And their "freedom to assemble" laws are strange/strict (it's been documented that you cannot go anywhere on public streets/sidewalks - police will escort you out of neighborhoods if you "don't belong).

Where are you getting your information from?

Yes, we don't have Freedom Of Speech as an Amendment.
But we do have the right of speech to protest, complain or debate openly in public, in media & directly to the govt as long as it doesn't incite violence or discrimination.

Internet laws being strict?
We are not censored or restricted in any way whatsoever.
Our broadband speed may be slower than America is some areas but that's more to do with infrastructure than restrictive laws.

Won't bother debating gun laws.
It works & we are truly grateful it does.

Freedom to assemble?
You're referring to ONE STATE back in the 1980's.
The premier of Queensland enforced the law at the time to curb bikers in public gathering in groups, open street drug sales in certain suburbs & to stop groups of people being intoxicated in public.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I understand that there's nothing to debate regarding Australia. Which is why you've introduced a new topic about the US to move the conversation away from Australia's restrictive laws and regulations (putting it near the bottom of the G20 on the "freedometer"😉.

But let's turn this into a debate about gun laws, gun ownership, and gun freedom in the United States because this is your thread and you've moved the goalposts in your own thread.

Regarding that article which employs an often used tactic by dishonest leftists who like to try and sneakily conflate "gun deaths" with "intentional homicide", there's a factual rebuttal for that! 🙂

1. How about not dishonestly correlating gun deaths with gun ownership and instead correlating the honest statistic of homicide rates with gun ownership rates? The point is not to stop gun deaths - that's retarded. The point is to reduce overall intentional homicide or violence. Shifting violence, like Australia did, is not the objective. Actually reducing homicides and violence is the objective.

2. How about not dishonestly sneaking in suicides with gun deaths and instead focusing on gun homicides?

3. How about not dishonestly sneaking in accidental gun deaths and instead focusing on gun homicides?

4. How about not dishonestly sneaking in police gun deaths and instead focusing on gun homicides?

And this often cited study? Well well well, do I have some news for you. Here's what they say that is often cited by anti-gun peeps:

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409

Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates (incidence rate ratio = 1.009; 95% confidence interval = 1.004, 1.014). This model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%.

Here's what they did to massage their data:

They used derivative figure for gun ownership rates based on suicide-to-gun-ownership. Had they used the much more accurate data from Injury Prevention (who did not use a derarvative figure based on suicide-to-gun-ownership, but instead used a sample to represent the true population statistic) instead of this very dishonest but sneaky figure, they'd see a much lower gun ownership rate and now their correlation magically disappears. Imagine that, using data that reflects true ownership rates results in their correlation evaporating. Hmm...why would they do this?

Because on this particular topic, they have a political bias:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-journal-of-public-health-ajph/

And they've been in hot water, before, for their data selection biases:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5343702/

If you don't read anything in my post, read and understand just this:

In the gun debate, anti-gun proponents often use the dishonest tactic of trying to correlate guns with only gun deaths (including suicide) instead of guns with homicides. If the goal is to reduce homicides, then we should look at solutions to reduce homicides. If you want to reduce Road Deaths, you don't look at just Semi-Truck (Lorry) caused deaths, you look at them all.

EDIT: Fixed your f*ck up you're welcome.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Where are you getting your information from?

Yes, we don't have Freedom Of Speech as an Amendment.
But we do have the right of speech to protest, complain or debate openly in public, in media & directly to the govt as long as it doesn't incite violence or discrimination.

In other words, you don't have freedom of speech.

And, like I said, among the G20, it's among the worst when it comes to speech.

http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/4529/do-we-have-the-right-to-freedom-of-speech-in-austr.aspx

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Internet laws being strict?
We are not censored or restricted in any way whatsoever.
Our broadband speed may be slower than America is some areas but that's more to do with infrastructure than restrictive laws.

What? Are you living in the Victoria Desert? How could you not know about Australia's weirdly restrictive internet laws and internet censorship?

https://www.efa.org.au/censorship/

And it made the rounds on the internet on places like reddit when other western countries mocked Australia for banning small-breasted women and "female ejaculation" porn.

https://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/australia-bans-small-breasts/

And your porn cannot have people peeing. crylaugh

What absurdly weird laws.

But I guess you weren't aware of any of this. The censorship, your oddly specific porn laws. The restrictions. You didn't know that some people were calling it The Great Firewall of Australia?

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1995615,00.html

And you can look up the government owned and controlled black list, as well. Obviously, governments black listing websites is not a pro-freedom endeavor.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Won't bother debating gun laws.
It works & we are truly grateful it does.

It doesn't work. The laws were created to reduce violence in Australia. That didn't happen. A bunch of idiots got together and wanted to make a feel-good law following a mass-shooting. That ended up doing nothing to reduce homicides. You can support idiocy, sure. But know you're giving up freedom and spending tax payer dollars on a regulation that doesn't even work.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Freedom to assemble?
You're referring to ONE STATE back in the 1980's.
The premier of Queensland enforced the law at the time to curb bikers in public gathering in groups, open street drug sales in certain suburbs & to stop groups of people being intoxicated in public.

You weren't aware that as recently as 2016, protests went all the way to Australia's high-court because people weren't allowed to protest?

And you weren't aware of this?

YouTube video