The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Abbot and Liberals kowtow to gun fanatics

Abbot and Liberals kowtow to gun fanatics

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Tony Abbott, the Liberal Party, and Gun Fanatics
Gun Control Australia

The Liberal Party’s website has come up with one of the most horrific and dangerous ideas of the last 100 years – to allow hundreds of thousands of Australians to carry concealed loaded pistols and revolvers.

We condemn Tony Abbott, his Attorney-General George Brandis, and the Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Justice and Public Security, Mr Jason Wood MP.

If ever a subservient attitude to the gun fanatics in our society has been envisaged, it is the Liberal Party’s sickening and shameful idea of allowing loaded pistols and revolvers to proliferate in our homes, our streets, our trams and trains, and our workplaces.

This socially irresponsible idea of concealed carrying of handguns is being supported by the member for Latrobe, Jason Wood. This man holds a position of such influence in the Liberal Party that he has responsibility for advising that party on ‘Justice and Public Security’. If ever the public had something to fear from an Abbott government it would be the presence of people like Mr Wood, who apparently support the ideas of gun fanatics.

Gun Control Australia Inc has written to Mr Abbott, Mr Brandis and Mr Wood, complaining about the two entries that have appeared on the Liberal Party’s website, where, in one case the major weakening of our gun laws has been suggested, and in the second case, where allowing people to carry concealed loaded pistols and revolvers has been proposed.

We cannot trust Mr Abbott and the Liberal Party to protect the Australian public by giving support to the existing gun laws – which to John Howard’s credit was strongly supported by the pre-Abbott Liberal Party.

Wake up Australians, the Liberal Party is paving the way to destroy our gun laws and turn this country into a gun mayhem like America, which has fifteen times the yearly rate of gun homicide as Australia.

What a heartbreak that would be to the families and loved ones of the hundreds of Australians who were murdered in gun massacres by legal gun owners.

http://guncontrol.org.au/
Posted by ChrisPer, Saturday, 7 August 2010 12:29:10 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
At least they are more accurate than those ruddy paintball guns....sheesh.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Sunday, 8 August 2010 7:52:40 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah, so all those tough thugs and intentional murderers are just waiting patiently for the law to relax...

My grandmother died of a heart-attack at the age of 70 after struggling with a criminal who tried to snatch her bag. How many other grandmothers could be saved have she had a loaded pistol and shot that fella.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 8 August 2010 10:33:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Can you give us a link to the Liberal policy ChrisPer? This thread and your site are the only mentions of it that I can see with a quick Google.
Posted by GrahamY, Sunday, 8 August 2010 11:23:17 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I approve of gun control, but it has to be a common sense based control unlike the academic knee jerk reaction gun law which was one of John Howard's not so sensible policies.
No one "needs" a 45 or other big calibre gun for shooting at paper targets. A .22 is ample for a sport kind of shooting. Someone who shoots to protect crops or feed obviously needs a more powerful gun. Then there are those who frequent places where an encounter with a wild bull, a boar or even a crocodile attack it very likely then they too need at least a .357 magnum. What I'm getting at is that some cheap kick seeker in the suburbs has no valid reason to have a powerful firearm whilst in the bush & at sea it is a real necessity. However, according to ignorant bureaucrats self defence is not a valid reason to cary a firearm. Shooting mindlessly at paper targets is. Go figure !
Posted by individual, Sunday, 8 August 2010 1:13:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh the irony of the Liberals backflipping on this issue!
Just for the record, I'm neutral towards gun ownership at the moment;
While I think of it as a fair self-defense right, I also notice that;
-Any crimes that would be legally fixed by an innocent party owning a firearm are really VERY low in this country. Hardly any assaults involve an innocent party, with very few violent thefts or break-ins occurring each year.
-Most Australians REALLY don't inspire confidence in me that they would be responsible firearm owners as a Canadian or Swiss National at all- and would imagine there WOULD be a significant jump in homicides, manslaughter, accidentally shooting the wrong person, kids getting access to the gun, etc if the guns were legalized.

Maybe when there is a drastic shifts in violent crime (both UP for assault on an innocent party, and DOWN for pub brawls and domestic violence), I would reconsider.
Posted by King Hazza, Sunday, 8 August 2010 2:17:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As per usual Gun Control Australia, a flakey outfit of a one-person human headline with a phone and a fax if there ever was one, is whipping up hysteria without any basis whatsoever. This whole beat-up resulted from a write-in suggestions section on the Liberal's site where in this case strong community support was shown for a particular idea someone sent in. It is not policy and Gun Control Australia knows that.

What the hysterical 'ban everything' fruit loops of Gun Control also realise is that gun crime in Australia has always been very low and it was trending forever downwards even before Howard's money wasting and ineffective buy-back, which was very expensive exercise in publicising Howard for an election.

As is abundantly clear, what gun crime there is results from the outlaw motorcycle gangs who authorities have finally admitted are the big importers and source of illegal guns in Australia. The other sources are thefts from security firms and police.

Concentrating on the wrong goal, ie 'gun control' and not on the real goal of reducing violence in Australia has already wasted many millions of dollars without any positive gains at all and there is plenty of peer reviewed research to prove that. Gun crime is directly linked with drugs not the law-abiding farmers and clay pigeon shooters who are all licensed and do not trade drugs.

If anything, all this new outbreak of sensationalist headline grabbing pap from the notoriously inaccurate and grandiosely titled Gun Control Australia (what a title!) demonstrates is its addiction to publicity in lieu of facts.
Posted by Cornflower, Sunday, 8 August 2010 5:11:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA
Posted by individual, Monday, 9 August 2010 6:53:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GY "Can you give us a link to the Liberal policy ChrisPer? This thread and your site are the only mentions of it that I can see with a quick Google."

He has not!

In the absence of anything to the contrary, one is left to presume it is simply a labor party dirty trick.

I suppose Julia & her union masters are so desperate they will stoop to anything to garner a vote
Posted by Stern, Monday, 9 August 2010 8:18:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hay King, once upon a time, this country used to trust me with a jet fighter, [not much of one I'll admit] armed with machine guns, & rockets.

For short periods it trusted me with a bl00dy great 4000 ton destroyer, armed with 6 x 4.5 inch guns & a few other things.

Please tell me why, now that I am no longer physically able to defend myself against thugs, I should not be trusted with a hand gun. I can still take the eye out of a fly with a rifle, haven't you noticed all the one eyed flies, [or is it people] around here?

There do not have to be many attacks by thugs mate, one will do. Ask my son, who still has double vision when he gets tired after just one such attack.

I very much doubt the libs would bring back guns, the noise from the chatters would be deafening, but it would be a good idea.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 9 August 2010 9:21:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Once a shooter but now on the side of Wildlife ,I have a Land for Wildlife sticker on the ute also a "No more dams sticker" .

Surprise,surprise, I get an unwanted sticker added, saying "Stop the extreme Greens ",and in red, "Vote Shooters and Fishers Party" .

No doubt the Libs and the Nationals like this sticker as a backup for their Preference Deals .

I seem to remember an old political leader's saying, "power comes out the barrel of a Gun " .
Posted by kartiya jim, Monday, 9 August 2010 11:59:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is no link to the Libs policy for two reasons:

1) It isn't Lib policy but an unhinged beat-up by the Gun Control proponents. As far as I can tell, every Gun Control Australia assertion in this piece is either flat wrong or spun so far from rationality that its unrecognisable.

2) The rant is based on a couple of past user suggestions (as Cornflower said). When the election was called, the Libs put up a new website that removed user suggestions and limited discussion to actual Liberal policy.
Posted by ChrisPer, Monday, 9 August 2010 12:32:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here is one of the the user suggestions to the Liberal website that triggered the Gun Control Australia rant - which I wrote.

(The other was a suggestion for handgun carry licenses which I view as politically unrealistic)

Quote:
"Time for a new National Agreement on Firearms"
It is past time for evidence-based gun controls. The 1996 National Agreement on Firearms was based on 1980s ideas from academics, activists and senior police of the National Committee on Violence. Rhetoric about 'America' blamed ordinary people for problems that have little to do with Australian reality. The emotional climate of 1996 resulted in laws that show 'moral superiority', but place very unfair burdens on innocent Australians that use firearms in daily life.

Recent research has shown that the high cost and regulatory burdens were not particularly beneficial in terms of lives saved or reduced violence. Social contagion theory best accounts for the massacres not as functions of 'availability' but of imitation, triggered by activism and sensational media reporting. The cessation of massacres is likely because media stopped framing stories that such crimes were 'easy' because of then gun laws.

A new Agreement on firearms should keep the helpful parts while dropping the parts that are based in elite contempt. "
End quote.
Posted by ChrisPer, Monday, 9 August 2010 12:41:30 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ChrisPer "There is no link to the Libs policy "

So that explains the opening lines of your post...

"Tony Abbott, the Liberal Party, and Gun Fanatics
Gun Control Australia

"The Liberal Party’s website has come up with one of the most horrific and dangerous ideas of the last 100 years – to allow hundreds of thousands of Australians to carry concealed loaded pistols and revolvers.

We condemn Tony Abbott, his Attorney-General George Brandis, and the Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Justice and Public Security, Mr Jason Wood MP....."

Why will I have difficulty in believing anything you write from now on?

[Deleted for abuse]
Posted by Stern, Monday, 9 August 2010 1:08:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stern, I posted that not to slag the Liberals, but to publicise an unhinged person slagging the Liberals read my post immediately above. That person is routinely quoted by journalists despite his ravings being transparently loopy.

As to 'shame' for slagging the Libs, they are used to it. Go talk to the ABC and read The Drum. Its a taxpayer-funded free-for-all to slag Liberals.
Posted by ChrisPer, Monday, 9 August 2010 1:18:05 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen- simple reason is I would need a lot of reassurances that if firearms were re-legalized: educational, cultural and restriction guidelines would be satisfying.

As violent crime in America is more heavily leaning towards armed criminals attacking other criminals, and then innocent civilians; while most violent crime in Australia are aggravated brawls, I think it's vital this is secured first.
Posted by King Hazza, Monday, 9 August 2010 2:21:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The coppers here say much crime is between criminals too. Most of the 'home invasions' in the news are over drug debts or drug dealings by the victims.

As far as changing the gun laws, most people don't know what they actually are, how they work in practice, or what the costs are. There is an assumption that what we have now is good, so any change requested by those in contact with them must be bad.
Posted by ChrisPer, Monday, 9 August 2010 2:38:50 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Its not easy being a gun fanatic...

Shooting enthusiasts, or gun fanatics as Tracy Grimshaw et al might them, are often painted as rednecks blasting away at anything that moves as well as traffic signs. I'm sure they are all walks of life, same as golfers/surfers/motorists etc.

There is an element of truth in the slogan that if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns, already it is cheaper and easier to get an illegal gun than jump through all the hoops to get a legal one. The one month cool-down period etc., would seem to make it more likely the person would calm down and go home. In reality, I'm certain potential murderers would be more likely to already have an illegal gun. A licensed gun person would be less likely to wave a gun around in a dispute, as they would know well that doing so means losing all their guns and license instantly.

Guns are a bit like V8 cars, those that dont have or want one think nobody should have one. But also, those that dont have or want a V8 car are soft in the head.
Posted by PatTheBogan, Monday, 9 August 2010 10:17:16 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PatTheBogan,

How do you solve the problems of a World full of gun Violence and record pollution?

Is it bigger guns and more V8's ??
Posted by kartiya jim, Monday, 9 August 2010 11:18:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I was thinking more guns and bigger V8's actually...
Posted by PatTheBogan, Tuesday, 10 August 2010 1:26:58 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
King Hazza, "....simple reason is I would need a lot of reassurances that if firearms were re-legalized: educational, cultural and restriction guidelines would be satisfying."

The population responsible for gun violence is a different population to licensed gun owners.

Just think about it for a moment - it has to be that way because you have to be a law-abiding citizen of good standing and with character references to obtain a licence in the first place. I mean, just how of do you hear of one of those 'dangerous' tweed-jacketed clay pigeon shooters, or Farmer Brown, sticking up a bank?

'Deputy' John Howard's thought bubble was that criminals would apply for gun licences and they would register their guns. Fail!

Now why would a outlaw motorcycle gang member out of Lakemba who can't even ride a Harley but is fully sick at selling crack down the Cross, ever comply with Howard's laws and rock on down to the police station to apply for a licence and register his Glock? It is just not going to happen, right?

However, John Hoard's 'initiative' was remarkable in two respects:

- firstly, at $1 Billion wasted taxpayers' dollars and counting it was the greatest single loss of money by any Australian government ever, a record! and

- secondly, John Howard's 'initiative' resulted in the introduction of 22 new taxes for licensed gun owners where there had only been one small licence fee before. But then John Howard's government was known for record casts of the javelin as far as the invention of new taxes was concerned, so making a milch cow out of another section of the population was only to be expected, I guess.
Posted by Cornflower, Tuesday, 10 August 2010 4:41:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
while I am unimpressed with the hype of this headline topic.
Notwithstanding what is over looked here is the attitudinal change towards fire arms in Australia over all achieved by Howard's initiative.

Guns in them selves are merely tools and no more dangerous than chain saws (The movie "Texas CS massacre" included ) the problem is the nut at the trigger end.

Australians are less likely to resort to guns and massacres as a means of dissatisfaction etc than an Americans.

Their fascination with guns tends to come from cultural myth that guns = control = power. It is also demonstrated that while there are sensible gun owners (target shooters and farmers), a vast number of gun owners are so because of the above outdated urban.

It's a bit like 4x4s many urban ones don't see dirt roads or the real need.

A number of my neighbours have boats that are rarely used maybe (once/twice a year) yet they are prepared to change a government over bay no fishing zones. The same goes for those neighbours who have guns.

All three issues tend to be visceral and as such out of proportion with reality.
The value of Howard's initiative was IMO his legacy 'a tendency to see guns as dangerous toys and tools with limited applicability (see them in perspective).'

Smoking, excess booze, recreational drugs, unnecessary speed demeaning attitudes to women, children, mental illness and other other prejudices are all in that same vein. Programs that reduce the negative impact of the above by changing cultural (delusional) perspectives are fine with me
Posted by examinator, Tuesday, 10 August 2010 10:14:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So...
People who have boats and highly value the chance to go fishing once or twice a year are somehow less rational than others.

People who see the symbolic trust of their neighbours as very important are irrational compared with those who pass laws based on contempt for those people, however innocent they are.
Posted by ChrisPer, Tuesday, 10 August 2010 3:25:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ChrisPer,

I'm sorry my response was a little too much for you to grasp the context.

In essence I was saying your headline was over top hype.

I was saying that the entire debate hung on out of perspective emotionalism.
Having a boat to go fishing twice a year is fine by me but to change a government because it closes the fish breeding areas from anglers is myopic to the point of idiocy.

likewise to argue that the social benefit from Howard's initiative doesn't exist or that it's not worth the expenditure.
It's all about getting things in perspective. I doubt that the public would accept going back to guns for all.

Of course the other issues are emotional but that doesn't mean they are correct or desirable. Arguing by comparison as you did is nonsense it's a bit like saying me Lizzy Borden should have been let free because she didn't kill as many people as Genghis Khan.

A blight on society ( fascination of guns given the motivations I stated) is a blight full stop.
Posted by examinator, Tuesday, 10 August 2010 4:42:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cornflower- it's not that criminals will use licensed weapons, its that idiots could, and as examinator said, in largely irrelevant circumstances to warrant ownership.
My point about the rates of violence actually has TWO points, which I will repeat only once more;
1- assault on innocent parties is very, very LOW. Therefore the risks of allowing widespread gun ownership compared to the stricter licensing laws we have now are, to me, rather skewed.
2- assault involving TWO willing participants over grievances are very, very HIGH. Not a good demographic to allow loosening of gun laws.

For me, I'm more worried about law-abiding but irresponsible users or agro knuckleheads and vigilantes in this country than I am over the possibility of an armed burglar conducting a home invasion for crack money.

So again, I would need an alarming shift of crime rates and general public conduct and culture, along with licensing protocol that would make ours seem more like the Canadian circumstances than those of the American Mid-West; before I would lean towards ownership rights.
Posted by King Hazza, Tuesday, 10 August 2010 4:56:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
King Hazza, "Cornflower- it's not that criminals will use licensed weapons, its that idiots could"

Where are the numbers to support that contention?

Before Howard, firearms ownership in Australia was already subject to licensing. Peer reviewed research has failed to show any appreciable gains from the $1billion of taxpayers money wasted by Howard on bureaucracy, paper and a buy-back. Worse, as a result of Howard's 'initiatives', hundreds of trained police in weapons branches across Australia now waste their days monitoring reputable, law-abiding people who have licences, keeping their personal data on computers as 'persons of interest' and making random inspections at their homes.

What Howard did was grandstand about firearms and play on people's fears and prejudices to win an election.

If you are concerned about violence and God knows from what you say there seems to be a lot of it in your neck of the woods, you should support what I am suggesting:

- that reducing violence be the goal, not blowing more government money on fraudulent, political diversions like 'gun control, 'knife control', 'bikie control' and so on.

..ie Goal is to reduce violence, do a comprehensive risk analysis and take the treatments from there. Too obvious, but not the 'law and order' BS that politicians are so fond of and gets us nowhere.
Posted by Cornflower, Tuesday, 10 August 2010 5:49:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
examinator, I agree the headline was over the top hype. The whole point was to expose over the top hype of Gun Control Australia by posting their exact words. They are not rational.

King Hazza, many reasonable people including perhaps a majority of shooters agree with you on much of that. If we could step away from 'argument from ignorance' to 'argument from evidence' about how people behave, it would be a vast improvement. For instance, the evidence is very clear that licensed firearms owners are far less likely to commit violence or gross carelessness than the population at large. Almost all of the serious offenses involving firearms involve unlicensed people with previous records of serious violence.
Posted by ChrisPer, Tuesday, 10 August 2010 7:53:17 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris Per- this is what I'm talking about, and laws would have to guarantee that guns would be resticted to only very sensible people indeed.
My concern are laws that would broaden access.
Posted by King Hazza, Wednesday, 11 August 2010 9:33:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris Per,
So you accept that you lied and misrepresented in your headline and opening post. Yet you say it was not to slag the Liberals. What rubish!

I am surprised that your post was allowed in the first instance.

I once submitted an article regarding FGM in Aus which was rejected because I did not provide evidence of it occuring here.

Now I gave the moderators that evidence , by way of NSW Parliamentry hansard and media articles and it still was rejected. I expect there was a reluctance to overide the initial moderators rejection.

Your article should not have been accepted as you deliberately set out to deceive readers.

In my view you should have been required to present of your claims up front.
Posted by Banjo, Wednesday, 11 August 2010 10:27:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Correction,
The last sentence of my post should read:-

In my view you should have been required to show evidence of your claims up front.
Posted by Banjo, Wednesday, 11 August 2010 10:31:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well maybe Banjo; but they were not only NOT my claims, they were so over-the-top they appeared to me to be self-refuting.
Posted by ChrisPer, Wednesday, 11 August 2010 2:17:47 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
US versus Switzerland gun politics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

http://www.theblessingsofliberty.com/articles/article11.html

"The bottom line is one of attitude. Populations with training in civic virtue, though armed, do not experience sensational massacres or high crime rates. Indeed, armed citizens deter crime. Switzerland fits this mold. Similarly, America's lawful 'gun culture' is peaceful. Sadly, some of its subcultures are not."

From The Wall Street Journal Europe
Posted by Cornflower, Wednesday, 11 August 2010 3:48:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cornflower,

I agree that the issue is largely culturally induced attitude and therein lies Howard's best legacy.
Posted by examinator, Thursday, 12 August 2010 7:54:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
examinator,

So, having accepted that you are culturally disposed towards violence you should now do the decent thing and ban yourself.

Or are you fearful, again like John Howard, that violence might be imported like a commodity and you will catch it? Be proactive man, ban yourself now, if only one child is saved it is worth it.

Then again you could be thinking that what is 'immunising' Switzerland from the inevitable violent destinies of the US and Australia is that Switzerland is not multicultural, ie its monoculture somehow protects it against violence from within or of the imported kind? Gosh!

Instead, what about taking the easy, obvious and scientific way out and concentrating on the real presenting problem which is violence. Do that and follow where the evidence leads you. Got to be better than stereotyping and blind belief.

You see, it is more probable that the differences lie in simple, good things like Switzerland's better care of its citizens, than the 'cultural' dispositions and attitudes you are fearful of. Wouldn't you agree that it is more likely that (say) living in an overcrowded urban slum, having nothing to eat, no education, no health care and no prospects might contribute to violence? Hey why not do a drug deal?

Violence is a more awkward problem to solve than Howard's easy-peasy "Beware of the US gun culture". However the old fox JH was just playing politics and that was his goal, not reducing violence. JH blew a cool $1billion that could have been put to other worthwhile purposes. John Winston Howard deserves all of the credit he is due for his cynical wedge politics and his wastage of public funds.
Posted by Cornflower, Friday, 13 August 2010 12:42:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can remember, on the Thursday before Anzac day, 1956, as the senior cadet under officer of our high school cadet core, handing out 31 fully functioning WW1, & WW11 303 rifles.

These were issued to the 14 to 16 year old members of the cadet platoon who were to be the honour guard at the dawn service the following Sunday.

That afternoon some kids were walking or riding bikes home with their 303 slung over their shoulder, others were climbing onto the school buses, & even the school train, [yes we still had one of those back then] with their "gun".

Amazingly, no one even noticed. No one died, road signs did not suddenly cower in fear, in fact it was a very minor event. It also happened when the cadet core was having a Saturday rifle shoot at the range. It was too difficult to carry the 80 odd rifles to the range in bulk, so they were issued on Thursday, the cadet parade day, for the kids to bring themselves.

Back then we only had to issue a slouch hat, & a pair of decent boots to the people of Oz, & we had a ready made militia. You know the type. Their the ones who fought the Kokoda trail fight.

God help us now, if ever we did have to fight half our population would run away, if someone tried to give them a gun, let alone point one at them.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 13 August 2010 1:47:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is a lot of hysteria in Australia.

Queensland has a draft change to the Weapons Act to require that anything that could resemble a gun, such as toys and even guns made out of materials as unlikely as soap or plastic have to be registered and kept in a special weapons safe under lock and key. The owner of the toy would have to apply for a gun license and a $4,500 fine would apply if any of those conditions were breached. All up to the discretion of the police. George Orwell, you were right.

That should sort out any kid playing John Wayne, including those who mould soap in the tub. Such playfulness if observed by one of the easily-traumatised hysterics that seem to abound in Oz, could result in the men in black tactical response team with Glocks and other nasties breaking down the door.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/law-to-target-fake-firearms/story-e6freoof-1225900793134

There are already hefty fines if a policeman doesn't like that handy Swiss Army knife or penknife you are carrying to deal with that orange or apple. However concealed knives are OK for (multicultural) reasons, "religion will be a lawful excuse for carrying a knife".
Posted by Cornflower, Friday, 13 August 2010 3:04:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cornflower,
You are either missing the point or are becoming confused between the individual and the statistical mass.

Howard successfully changed the mass attitude towards gun from a testosterone boost or a mental penile extension to what it is a dangerous tool.
You are somewhat out of touch or over hyping your defence.
I have seen a nerf gun made of plastic, modified so that it can sent a 6" nail sized bolt through a wall at 15 paces.
The government isn't after the 7yo quick draw but the 16/18 yo hood in a gang fight or a servo hold up.

Perspective old bean perpective
Posted by examinator, Friday, 13 August 2010 7:01:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
examinator,

I don't mind government spending huge sums of money, however I need to see some evidence of value for money being obtained.

There is abundant peer reviewed research saying that there is no evidence whatsoever of any gains from Howard's gun laws and gun buy-back. There is nothing, nix, nada, nil.

On the other hand you have provided no evidence whatsoever to support your assertions.

Researchers 1, examinator 0.

Howard $1billion blown, public benefit nil.
Posted by Cornflower, Friday, 13 August 2010 9:48:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy