JT> The papers are supposed to provide an
JT> unbiased view of the news in question

RS> Crap, most of them, particularly Ruperts rags, are supposed
RS> to make money. Part of the way they do that is by providing
RS> a very superficial commentary that the stupids will buy coz
RS> it doesnt strain their tiny little 'brains'

JT> That explains why I ignore it anyway.
JT> And the TV news.  Actually, all the news.

That explains how you end up so ignorant of the real
world. Like how the law does change at times for example.

Nothing to stop you choosing to use the better done news.

JT> In some stories that I happened to know about and what really
JT> happened, the paper story is worded so the literal message
JT> is just an unbiased view, but is worded so that it may imply
JT> other things, or neglect to mention other points, or change
JT> the importance of some of the points to imply something else.

RS> Sure, no argument that whenever they do cover a story that
RS> you do know quite a bit about, they have very obviously mangled
RS> the story, often obscenely mangled it. BUT its an entirely
RS> separate issue whether they have mangled it ON PURPOSE or the
RS> exigencys of how things have to be done produce that result.

JT> I dunno, some stories have been mangled in a way that is quite amusing.

Sure. But you were claiming that it was deliberate.
It usually isnt, particularly with the quality media.

RS> Point being, we can change our law to
RS> whatever we like on that any time we want

JT> Nice that you claim that, but I don't see it happening.

Hardly surprising, you never watch any news John.

JT> The law won't change to have an exception to the rule on who gets killed.

It clearly already DOES have those with cops.

RS> We can change it to anything we like John.

JT> And how may that happen?

RS> Have a look at how laws get changed.

JT> Vote?  Doesn't that mean that you get to agree
JT> or disagree on points that have already been made?

RS> It ALSO means that if enough people want the law
RS> changed to that, it can be changed to that. I think
RS> thats called democracy or something funky like that.

JT> Interesting concept.

Yeah, it did turn out to be a hell of a lot more viable
than every other alternative we have tried on law changes.

JT> Take the gun fiasco for instance, guns don't affect the majority.

Utterly irrelevant to whether the law got
changed because enough wanted it changed John.

Lots of laws "don't affect the majority" and are laws ANYWAY.

Very few are directly affected by bank
robberys for example, they are banned anyway.

JT> They go through their day to day lives and never get
JT> to see any gun let alone be involved in a situation
JT> where they are standing at the bussiness end of one.

Just as true of bank robberys.

JT> Yet they have the most opinions and yell the loudest.

Thats what democracys are about John, their opinions are what matters.

Thats certainly got its downsides, but it sure beats having some
hereditary fool deciding that stuff, or a dictator who chooses to
use goons with guns to keep himself at the controls decide that
stuff any day. Or furiously paging thru a book of fairy tales
written by illiterate goat herds more than 2K years ago to see if
you can find what some god is supposed ot have said on the matter.

JT> Take that dude who killed his wife with a steering wheel lock and then
JT> hung himself.  Whether he had a gun or not makes no difference to his
JT> mental state. If he had a gun, he would have shot his wife, and then
JT> shot himself. And those who use guns in their work or as a sport, would
JT> have an even harder time getting one or keeping the one they have.

JT> What difference did that make to his wife?   She is
JT> still dead. Taking guns away from the mentally unstable
JT> doesn't change the fact they are mentally unstable.

Sure, I'm not saying that the gun laws make sense, I agree that
they make no sense whatever. We were however discussing whether
CHANGES are possible in the law if enough people want the change.
The gun laws are an absolutely classic example of CHANGES John.

No one would ever be silly enough to claim that a decent democracy
always makes perfect changes to laws. They clearly do make changes tho.

JT> But, since everyone says guns are bad, the pollies ban them

Nope, the gun laws got changed because almost every got severe
brain fade after Port Arthur, couldnt think of anything useful
to do that would avoid another one of those happening, werent
prepared to do nothing, and so they did what cant work instead.

They are mostly too terminally wooly minded to even be able
to grasp that it cant do a damned thing except piss the best
part of $1B against the wall to no useful purpose whatsoever.

But clearly CHANGES to the law DO HAPPEN John.

So that original on the 'rights' of burglars can be changed too.

JT> and get more votes, and stay in power longer and enjoy the perks.

Thats not why they do it John, they themselves got precisely the same
brain fade the vast bulk of the voters got. And have just as many of the
terminally wooly minded who cant even grasp that the changes wont work.

JT> Yep, you're right, it works.  This funky democracy thing works fine.

Sure works a HELL of a lot better than every other alternative John boy.

Look at Gough. Passed his useby date rather quickly, got the bums
rush, the voters expressed their opinion of Gough very convincingly
indeed, we didnt even end up with a SINGLE broken window.

Sure beats the sort of mindless insanity thats
going on in most of eastern europe right now eh ?

Sure, a decent democracy certainly does produce some dud decisions,
but a TINY handful of countrys have been using that approach for 100
years or more class times now, thru some VERY stringent tests like
the great depression and two world wars, and it WORKS John, a HELL
of a lot better than every other alternative thats ever been tried.

Most of those have been lucky to even last TEN years.

JT> They say that no-one should get killed for any reason.

RS> Thats complete crap too. The CURRENT law says that if you have
RS> reasonable fear for your life, you are entitled to kill the assailant
RS> if there is no other reasonable course of action available to you.

RS> And there is considerable latitude on reasonable fear too. If the
RS> assailant turns out to have a fake gun, its still reasonable to assume
RS> that its real, you dont have to wait for bullets to come out of it.

JT> But first you have to stop to evaluate the situation and see
JT> if you can prove that you really believed you were in danger.

RS> Crap. Your original claim on 'They say that no-one should get killed
RS> for any reason' is a complete dud, and this later claim is even worse.
RS> Its up to THEM to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that you DIDNT John.

JT> Innocent until proven guilty?

Yep, thats the way we do it, particularly
with the most serious offenses like homicide.

JT> Interesting concept,

Yep, its one of the things those poms invented.
Tho they always were rather selective about how they
applied it. Never did apply to the irish for example.

JT> it works well for the innocent, shame it also works for the guilty.

It was DELIBERATELY structured like that John. Essentially because
its FAR more socially corrosive to wrongly convict the innocent.

JT> Better kill the guilty just to be on the safe side.

Sure, if you are sure that there are no witnesses, that may well
be the effective approach. Pity you claimed it was the legal one.
Soorree, bears no resemblance to the legal approach what so ever.

JT> In self-defence of course, you understand.

Fine, as long as you dont have any witnesses that show that claim is a
complete pack of lies. Coz if you do, you may well be convicted of murder.

JT> There has been some real blunders, but as far as I can see, most
JT> of the time, the guilty party gets off lightly, no real incentive
JT> to not do the crime again.  Crime does pay, and bloody well too.

RS> True, but thats almost entirely the
RS> current state of the law, not the media

JT> The media doesn't help the situation BTW.

RS> Its not THERE to 'help the situation' John.

JT> You got that right.

RS> I got all the rest right too |-)

JT> You're a legend in your own mind.

And in fido too |-)
@EOT:

---