Sigh the US firearms ARGUMENT

Folks the problem with this argument (and it is that) is that the conservatives (sic) are arguing by non existent extremes or absolutes.
e.g. I challenge ANY conservative to give me ANY right (sic) that is ABSOLUTE !
We all drive vehicles but we must comply with rules and be licensed and If I'm drunk high I'm not allowed to drive and what's more my right (sic) to drive can be taken from me.
As for freedom of speech that two is controlled e.g. if I were to write and publish a book that describes a incestuous relationship between Mary (the Mary and JC ) what are the bets I'd be allowed to sell it, even if it was attached to a good story and well written Hmmm?
We don't even have the right to die (euthanasia) much less help a suffering terminally ill loved one to. Yet the conservatives want the unrestricted right to bear arms and to kill someone who we think is up to no good
(Trayvon Martin come to mind.) with impunity no less... can anyone see the problem here.
 As for abortions same deal.
What the conservatives really mean is we want to impose our (inconsistent/ hypocritical) views on others who aren't like them. The same goes for wars of commercial interest (sorry self defence(sic) i.e. Iraq, Haiti et al) . It's been a long time since I left the seminary but I don't remember the Christian dictum that says 'love thy neighbor/enemy then kill them, appropriate their resources and ensure their poverty. But I digress.
In truth there are no absolute rights they are all modified by virtue of living in an ordered/ civilised society.
So let's stop with the BS about my rights to absolute anything and get real. Lets try to figure out the most appropriate place to draw the line (for the good of the country) .

Neither side is saying take ALL fire arms nor is any side saying no more vehicles so stop with the BS about slippery slope (domino effect the justifying argument for Vietnam). I've lived in Australia and only an ignorant fool would say it's a socialist country and the citizens don't have fire arms or 'hunters'. Absolute rubbish just certain 'types' of weapons the latter still exist. What's the difference between the need for semi automatic weapons and having a formula 1 race vehicle for my daily drive and at its optimum speed e.g brakes don't work properly until near full power. ...none Both are ridiculous in most citizen situations .
While we're on Australia let's revisit the stats in the article. What they don't show is how and what was collected they all use official stats. BUT the data collected doesn't differentiate between accidental shooting merely fire arm deaths nor does it go into who is shooting who ...(for example figures collected other than police or hospital stats) indicate that 80% of criminal murders are actually criminal against criminal. Likewise bystander deaths can be counted on one hand over the last 15 years. Drive by shooting deaths are rare and innocents from them rarer still!

What the bald stats don't show is that MASS shootings of INNOCENTS take your pick be it a theatre, school , McDonalds etc haven't happened since John Howard a “Liberal Party” PM (read essentially conservative side ...supposedly Republican lite) brought in the firearm control and buy back. (note the conservative American tactic of misappropriation of the term Liberal and how this excludes a whole set of language and options ).
In short it all depends on what you want to achieve ...Australia just wanted to preclude mass shooting of innocents and REDUCE the availability of weapons to those most likely to do harm. The drop in gun related suicides is a bonus. Whether it on it's own reduced suicides I DON'T KNOW. What I as a volunteer crisis intervention counsellor it does give time to activate appropriate help.

What WASN'T on the agenda was total weapons ban or to absolutely stop violence. Neither was/is ever going to happen by one magic bullet (excuse the pun) . Those are too complex.
My point as stated comes down to this: which would you (as a parent) rather hear in the news.
1. Young man goes nuts and stabs mother or
2. some young man has gone nuts at your child's school and killed perhaps 20 children end 8 adults?
BTW Australian schools don't have and don't need lock ins, metal detectors, or armed anything no need. These events are as rare as kangaroo rodeos. There hasn't been one yet.
Aust. has its problems violence murder et al but in 99% of the time having weapons wouldn't stop them AND the the real nasties i.e. mass shootings of innocents just is not a factor there.

Sports boycott of Sri lanka

While I applaud the people who Get excited and want to sports boycott Sri Lanka for it's horrific crimes at the end of  decades long civil war I'm a little more pragmatic these days.
I need to explain what I mean by that. In NO WAY can it be seen as indifference, acceptance or 'the blind eye'. There is no way I'll ever accept that their actions were anything less than Genocide of the worst kind and should be appalled.

I simply mean that there needs to be and end game beyond the tactic i.e. what is it beyond the banning of sporting ties are you trying to achieve?
Taking Sri Lanka victors to the HAIG ? to what end? Cumbs, the those behind the Killing fields in Cambodia, SA apartheid hardly got touched. The estimated 4-6 million in Indonesia when Sukarno took over and the Suharto regime's are the stuff of definitions of hell on earth.... East Timor being classic yet in all cases the villains have prospered and even some military are still doing the same again in West Papua . Neither does this litany of man's inhumanity to man and corporate acquiescence, participation or tacit culpability in any way ooze out of the primordial slime of obscenity.

Notwithstanding no amount of vengeance/ justice et al is going to reverse a single death. I posit that unless there is an end game (i.e. a greater good) stirring up sectarian, ethnic, religious hostilities is counter productive to ALL Sri Lankans that struggle to survive TODAY. Esoteric(western sensibilities ) Principal is a luxury many can't afford. Keep in mind that South African poverty by and large while Truly awful isn't as appalling dangerous and severe as in Sri Lanka.



In all of this the Tamil tigers weren't exactly paragons of virtue either, their crimes against innocent people even their own were equally despicable. So where do we draw the line on prosecutable (revenge) atrocities? IMHO that is both a pit of quicksand and vipers after all people will be people regardless of an agreement on paper.

And don't forget the Apartheid was still happening and condemnation was at the national level global ... if not entirely corporately... different circumstances (world) and most importantly the boycott had a Practical END game.
To me the real effort should go into making it know to Sri Lanka we are aware of the killings and work towards it never happening again.

I'm sure if you asked the surviving Tamils if they preferred ' justice' and the probable violence and instability push back by those with something to lose OR (albeit slow and spasmodic) improving conditions now on the answer would be a no brainer.

Keep in mind human nature, i.e.  many prefer a harsh stability to Chaos and instability.
It is too easy for us in our assumed arrogance comfort expansive lifestyles to philosophise and project them on the mass peasants whose primary goal is immediate survival.

A Chinese Modern leader once wisely said "with 1 billion poor starving peasants we can't afford western democracy (consumerist excess consumption) ....first feed them " .
Likewise that same leader when berated by the US prez for not letting his people leave China he quipped "ok how many million do you want"
Be careful what you wish for the consequence may not be that palatable.