There's hardly a weekend passes when we're not confronted by yet another headline that some poor bloke has been 'King-Hit' and is languishing in hospital with serious head injuries. All as a result of this particularly grievous offence ?

We're advised by our wise Premier, this is just another example of 'fuel filled violence', and in order to stop it, we the community, must first take personal responsibility for curbing our own excessive consumption of alcohol ?

Is the Premier right or wrong ? Or is this just another media 'beat- up'? Or perhaps there may be another dimension altogether, to this violence, yet to fully rear it's ugly head ?

O Sung Wu, As far as I am concerned, if someone 'king hits' someone else, causing them serious brain damage or death, then they should be tried for murder.

I don't care whether they have alcohol, drugs, or nothing in their system, they should still be tried for murder.

There has been enough talk on the TV, radio, social media etc about the consequences of hitting someone with enough force to knock them onto the ground where they strike their heads, causing brain damage and/or death.

No one should be unaware of these consequences of this violent action, so they should be jailed for murder.

o sung wo I think they have,and just maybe we are to blame.
In my childhood and teen age years it was seen as contemptible to king hit.
Too to use a knife, now as we see so often both are common place.
Just maybe justice is filtered by the costs of imprisonment.
What other reason can we find for the short if any sentences we see.
In all things I have confidence in youth to bring about change, however in this and many areas they must first confront the PC bug, a monster that consumes common sense.

its..clearly a beatup
media..ignored it for centuries

WHY now
more bikie legislation[govts DONT WANT person/to person
they want cyber..PEER TO PEER..[ie to/listen to us talking to each other..*THROUGH..THEIR..listening posts]

its stage two..of the free associations..LAW

ie
their not able to be bugging us..en mass
[they hate that unmoderated..communication..we do in pubs]

im sorry suze didnt explain..how friday/saterday/holyday
casualty rooms..are full of bleeding drunks..ALWAYS WAS

..but you o sung wu..must have attended a few 'incidences'..in your time too..but policing has changed..their there now..to follow orders

there there now..to intimidate us into silence

I suggest that home burglaries, often against the elderly and occasioning violence, are a bigger concern. The incidence has climbed significantly and the clearance rate (solved crimes) is poor.

Regarding serious assaults at social venues and in other public places, there always was a number of Houso thugs who practised their pugilism in home rings, sponsored by 'Wonderful Centrelink' and came to town on Friday and Saturday nights, often with their female equivalents along for the fun, seeking targets. Another example could be the groups of 'original Australians' who lurked outside country dances demanding cigarettes and drink, or be bashed instead (likely as well).

Just as bad behaviour and violence have taken over some once-peaceful country towns, similar ferals of all descriptions have become active in all areas. It is not helped by the importation of ethnic gang violence, which is far more vicious and does not require even the false 'insult' to begin.

Several actions need to be taken. However the proactive actions must include real unskilled/labouring jobs for the unemployed men and women who are fit but draw Centrelink. Forget the emphasis on training and education which have not worked to encourage the ferals and are despised anyhow.

Reactive actions must include mobile bus lock-ups with toilet to locate in social gathering spots after hours to house drunks and other offenders. Any abuse, any idiocy and into the bus, with possible release at the discretion of police a minimum of 4 hours later or to the watch house for charging.

I will not enter into a debate about how 'Progressive' social policies have been soft on criminals and legitimised it for some. Most people are aware of that negative consequence of political correctness anyway.

King hits are one thing, but, perhaps being on the streets at 3 am is something people need to take into account, as prevention is better than cure, because let's face it, the majority happen when most regular working people are in bed.

Sure everyone is entitled to be safe on our streets, but seriously, if one places ones self at risk then that is in it's self a preventable act.

As for the offenders, I don't think it's murder, but I do think is a shocking crime and one that need tough sentencing.

otb..they already got them busses[im riding..on/nee to south bank..on tuesday/night..for my timing with destiny

[thats [providing..they even /let me..hop on..the bus
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6152#178808

anyhow..this kid fear..has been set up..GL:OBALY
they fear these twitter-wits..fast with thier thumbs

http://www.blacklistednews.com/VIDEO%3A_Hundreds_of_Teens_Trash_Mall_in_Wild_Flash_Mob/31529/0/38/38/Y/M.html
they been planning this for years..[it seems to have its roots with keating..[the rough idea..is ridicule..or jail the parents[or take out the..father]..so the govt kiddy fiddler SERVICES..can DELIVER kids on demand..to the govt systems perverts

see if you..got the dirt on..aLL your leaders
you can do..even greater perversions[like steal our gold silver coin]
http://investmentwatchblog.com/fedup-100-protests-to-abolish-the-fed/

or take the commonwealth bank..away..of install ever more taxes/send more parents to jail..for ever more kids

[one quater our leaders..are kiddy perverts

they certainly cant face the truth
so they need drug laws[that largely simply criminalises kids]
[the real*plan..is sterilize them]

http://gmoreport.blogspot.com/2013/08/is-epicyte-gene-that-causes-sterility.html

twenty[out of 21]..plead guilty via a corrupt..'legal aid' *system [to get at your kids...or rather..their kids..kids
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/27/fbi-otherwise-illegal-activity-report_n_4506385.html

thats why im..going to get busted..at southh bank
[for free association..or rather the other 'laws'..to stop us SIMPLY getting together

ALL VI0LLENCE..isnt linked to booze
they are doped up..on percribed meds..[their over tired]

Further down it mentions a tweet by the son from last August where he talks about his sleep cycle being out of whack. Sleep disorders are a common side-effect of prescription anti-depressants.

http://misguidedchildren.com/justice/2013/12/mother-hacked-to-death-by-son-on-christmas-eve/9600

So once again this looks like a murder
triggered by these dangerous medications.[plus tiredness/plus booze

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Mounting-evidence-drug-an-by-Daily-kos-Dogs_Drugs_Drugs-Marijuana-Hemp_Police-Abuse-Of-Power-131227-511.html

http://xrepublic.tv/node/6753
http://www.visibleorigami.com/2013/12/on-doorstep-of-new-world.html

http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/congress-must-not-cede-its-war-power-to-israel/

rehctub,

The evening security staff of city office blocks near popular social venues find plenty of knives hidden in landscaping.

It isn't just 3am, although the drunkenness makes for more targets.

I have had a lot to do with youth through various roles and my own children. Given their own head, most well brought up male youth wouldn't go near the clip joints where most of the problems occur, or occur in the vicinity thereof. These young men only go to those places because their girlfriends insist, and it is where girls go.

The girls want to meet, greet and dance. Years ago Brisbane had Cloudland, which was cheap and popular, and where patrons were reasonably well scrutinised and known. Play up and you wouldn't get in there again until forgotten, which could have been a long time.

Ask any cop and you will be immediately set straight on the ownership and operation of the clubs where problems occur. Such as in Brisbane's Valley, where clubs have been owned by persons of ill repute since Adam was a boy. Never, ever, step into any of the lane ways in the vicinity and never, ever, appear under the weather in one of those clubs or near, and never, ever, leave any of your group as the last one there and never, ever, expect to take the last bus or cab, home. Always keep one or two of the group sober and alert.

There was a Royal Commission that identified the problems, there were always drugs too, and made recommendations. But the cancer always grows back. All politicians know or should know that and so do the media. It is about $$ and graft. While all youth should be able to go out and maybe get tipsy it is always unsafe to do that in or near many venues, period and that is very well known to police and politicians. Maybe look at licensing? Nah, too simple and it affects the payola (remember the Royal Commission).

one under god,

You have raised relevant points too. I am sorry I was tapping away while doing something else as well and did not see your comments before posting.

I may come back later after others have had a chance to give their opinions. Police I know locally would just like young people to drink less and avoid the known risk locations. That appeal to the responsible, law-abiding youth and aimed at them protecting themselves. How that advice is brought home to girls, God only knows.

Such advice is wasted on the troublemakers, Police say the offenders are known and are always let off by courts. Police also say that booze venue licences are sometimes held by the wrong sorts, but there is bugger-all they can do about that.

I wonder if we could afford a fist buy-back in the present economic climate. When I see some of these brawls on TV I wonder how quickly those vermin could be deposed of by a decent citizen with a .22
These brawls would be a thing of the past in no time.

Onthebeach blames the girls.
Individual blames a lack of guns.

Same ol', same ol' for the coming year on OLO I see...

suze..next year..i/arnt likely to be here
that should immediately..lift..things up..around here

anyhow i note the watchers have been watching
[they just redirected me from alex index..[to get todays podcast]

JUST AFTER I..POSTED..*THIS
look the fastest way to get you up to speed
http://xml.nfowars.net/Alex.rss
[now redirects to live rep[lay]..broadcast..for today
[it used to be the index[see under

http://rss.infowars.com/20131227_Fri_Alex.mp3
http://rss.infowars.com/20131226_Thu_Alex.mp3
http://rss.infowars.com/20131225_Wed_Alex.mp3
http://rss.infowars.com/20131224_Tue_Alex.mp3

anyhow a minute after posting that..they began redirecting me
so no doudt they will prevent my posting it to twitter

oneunderstands
[is me]

anyhow ol mate[how do i twitter it now?
im..stymied..in real time..

i..refuse to die..for their lies...
but when you got nuthin..you got nuthin to loose

[just in case you dont see anything..on twitter
before i post them..there..all i ask for this peace

is here

#178808 ,/. #one under god #freeman #urgent #sun7 #alex jones #infowars
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6152#178808
letter to hrh #178808

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15864#274775
gods will. #178808

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6166#179044
laws of assosiation #178808

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6164#179036
controling govt #178808

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6165#179058
just for a lark #178808

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6158#178913
what im really angry about #178808

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=51186&show=history
post history #178808

URGENT..listen #178808
http://xml.nfowars.net/Alex.rss
[the link they redirected/to live]

urgent/read #178808
http://whatreallyhappened.com/node

hopefully..suzie..i may..see..you new-years/eve/sunshine
but if its..not on alex..or on twitter[and live]..such was nightmares life.

maybe next year..things might get better
with a little help from my friends..[or not]

anyhow by gods grace..we may continue..next yea

Suseonline,

I was trying to communicate the need safe, supervised places to meet, greet and dance, hopefully without booze and drugs being in plentiful supply. I am trying my very best to understand what others sense and see, and to relate my imperfect view and assessments.

Most people read to make sense of what another has written. You constantly seek the cheap shot. Your choice and your loss.

There's also something called the "Knockout Game", it's not exactly as new a phenomenon as it's being portrayed, I had a couple of guys try to king hit me when I was younger, but it's something to be aware of:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nCOJ1KmpXM
I used to hang around some rough joints and I lived on Fitzroy St in St Kilda in the bad old days of the late 1980's and was given similar advice to that in the video above, always keep your head up and on a swivel, practice looking at your reflection in shop windows to see who's around you.
The best advice though is just don't get drunk in public, if you want to get smashed do it at home, my friends and I were prodigious drug takers and drinkers back in the day but we'd normally leave the pub or the disco sober enough to drive then carry on at someone's house where we could total ourselves in comfort and safety.

o sung wo I find it surprising some do not understand what you have written about.
`Even today,s press has another story and if we collated the headline ones, including deaths from 2013 we all would be stunned.
You served in NSW so maybe be aware of some dreadful pubs, say the Robin Hood in Blacktown and stockade at Lalor park if we stay out of the city center.
Glassing, first cousin of a king hit was unheard of.
Men fought face to face not praising them, but it was unheard of to take a cheap shot well some put the boot in.
In the end battled scared as I was then true Gutlessness linked to wanting a reputation drives most king hit merchants.
Gee OUG you say you are an ex Biker surely you have seen the innocent deaths in just the last twelve months?
My list of Sydney pubs no sane man should walk in to today would be ten posts long.
But how do we blame an innocent killed on the streets just walking his girl home?
Aim up blokes the subject is king hits nothing else.
And gutless fools deserve no support or place to hide our streets are ours too. Robin hood Hotel, long gone and we are better fo9r it, but it saw some true street fights worth remembering.
Many saw the boot go in no one dare king hit there a long time ago but two men wanting to fight is far different than a cheap hit. Aussies once could bank on most not being so cowardly.

Hi all...

I wish I could direct the Premier and his Cabinet, to much of what you've all written herein ? As there's complete veracity in what ever one of you has said thus far. Firstly identifying the problem, the origin, and even the formula for excising, both the crime, and the offender, out of the public sphere ?

It's true the old King Hit, or 'sucker punch' has been around for yonks, even when I was young. Though I'll concede, not quite as much in the public arena as it is today, nevertheless it was around.

Then what really does mystify me personally... I can only assume, by reading much of what you've all written herein, if you and I and the bloke next door, all of us know how to deal with this insidious crime, in principle. Why then don't our elected representatives know ? If they do know, why then haven't they taken the necessary measures to ensure this crime is absolutely PURGED from out statutes !

Suseonline,
Well, I'd rather trust a decent citizen with a gun than some half-baked pseudo academic with their logic, i.e. no answers to any problems.

o sung wu,

There is already action in several States to address the king hit. There is also whining opposition from some 'human rights' lawyers. They must mean criminal rights.

It (king hit) is part of a broader problem, however it does need to be resolved as a matter of urgency.

Somewhere along the way some years ago the rights of offenders became the paramount concern. For example, in Queensland bikie thugs surrounded a police station, threatened police and demanded release of a prisoner. They had also created mayhem in a public place. The human rights 'experts' the media consulted were upset that the premier had taken necessary action to protect the public!

It is that culture that has inhibited and sometimes prevented change.

I don't think we can totally blame alcohol and/or drugs for this burgeoning street crime. I've locked-up blokes arrested during a 'stink', and while processing them at the station, you hear the chatter amongst themselves, about the blue's they've been in, who's copped a kickin' etc, and who was sent to hospital.

To me, it's sounds more like bragging about the high levels of violence, they've inflicted on their hapless victim ? And these offenders are NOT always affected by booze or drugs.

Often too on the way out to the Bay on 'four wheels' you can frequently hear them boasting about the levels of injury they've occasioned to their victim. The only trouble is, in the retelling all the other crooks of their exploits, they conveniently forget to add, their victim was first 'king hit', before they copped the old 'Julius Marlow' afterwards ?

All this crap is designed to produce this artificial masquerade or depiction of being a 'heavy'. Trouble is for these idiots, they're often tested pretty quickly when they first hit the yards ?

In my humble opinion, a lot of this stuff, is well founded in the psychologically profile of some of these blokes, until they finally end up killing someone !

And the more 'boob' they do, the bigger the illusion they construct for themselves, of being a really dangerous and violent heavy. And the next stupid easily led young punk comes along, and he too tries to emulate this tough bloke by 'king' hitting some boor bugger just minding his own business. So the wheel of violence continues to turn slowly ?

True, alcohol and drugs DO play some part in the equation. But there are many other considerations yet to be examined and evaluated. Even before we as a society, can walk the streets of inner Sydney, in a much greater degree of safety.

Much of it comes down to lack of boundaries.

The offenders are usually young males full of liquor or drugs, who are aware they will not be punished severely for a king-hit.

Society has decided that the cost of king-hits in trauma to victims' self and families is less than the cost of cracking down on aberrant behaviour.

Thus there are few boundaries to this behaviour.

Thus it persists.

If every person who king-hit were sent to gaol for 40 years, it would cease tomorrow.

gg

Welcome back, o sung wu. I hope you're feeling much better. Your spirit seems to have returned in full force :~)

I wonder how many witnesses were present at these king hittings that were powerless to stop the assailants leaving the scene of the crime?

A few people with a 44 hanging off their hips would definitely put a stop to this kind of thuggery, dontcha ya think?. After all the cops can only deal with crim's once the bloke is dead... err I mean the crime has been committed, a bit late then eh?

Welcome to a world where the do-gooders get to sit in their ivory towers watching their 50" plasmas, pontificating on the violence they created all those years ago! Forgetting we've had ample supply of booze since the abolition of prohibition all those years ago.

But lets blame the drugs and booze, anything else is just too hard!

Good evening...

It's interesting that many of you seem to think the punishment doesn't actually fit the crime ? In my opinion there were several pieces of legislation that effectively curbed much of this street violence;

The old 'Police Offences Act', now long repealed;
Followed by the 'Summary Offences Act' also repealed, I think ?
And lastly, the 'Consorting Act' repealed also.

I'll not labour on about the benefits of these pieces of legislation only to tell you all, that they all worked, and worked well, in their own inimitable way !

Why these particular pieces of legislation were repealed, is anybody's guess. Many people blame a succession of Labour governments, for their demise, I don't remember. Nor does it really matter, what do you all think ?

But pause for just one moment if you will and quietly consider...the first Premier, irrespective of their political colours, to reintroduce any of these three pieces of legislation, would immediately rocket straight to the top of the popularity listing. Because it would give police sufficient teeth to target the bullies and thugs that pervade our streets, by day and by night.

GARPAL GUMNUT...thank you for your interesting take on this topic. You suggest forty years of gaol may well be the answer for any of these knuckleheads who decide to wreck havoc on our neighbourhoods, with their unwitting street violence ? I reckon I'd have a long white beard reaching out to our front gate, waiting for a deterrent of that magnitude to occur ? The concept is sound, heavier penalties, though you'd need to convince the judiciary in order to have those sort of penalties introduced ?

RAWMUSTARD...Thank you so much for your very kind words, I really appreciate them. Actually, I don't blame any citizen for failing to render aid to a victim in this litigious climate. Apart from the safety concern, there's a legal perspective too ? It reaches a position where it all gets a little bit too hard ?

Your suggestion of a well slung .44mag may well do the trick, but it may also cause you more trouble then it's worth too ? A comforting thought nevertheless ?

Thank you both, for your thoughtful contribution.

"""
I don't blame any citizen for failing to render aid to a victim in this litigious climate. Apart from the safety concern, there's a legal perspective too ?
"""
No, o sung wu. I don't blame them either, for the same reasons you quote. But in years past and you would remember. We citizens had the power and the will to stop these thugs and they were dealt with it swiftly. We've now been reduced to a bunch of blouses watching our friends get slaughtered while do-gooders tell us what's good for us!

"""
Your suggestion of a well slung .44mag may well do the trick, but it may also cause you more trouble then it's worth too ?
"""
In years past we didn't need guns but we all had them and there were little problems, crime was a lot less. Now we're totally out of control and violent crime is rampant in our streets, our homes and our shopping centers and we're supposed to sit there like sitting ducks totally defenseless while some thug bashes our skulls in or sticks a blade in our ribs so he can post it on the fools tube!

I dunno, o sung wu. I think the way it's going a 44 will be mandatory in a not too distant future. The do-gooders will keep dragging everyone down till it's a complete zombie apocalypse. I don't see any rational discussion or improvements, do you? There's always a smartaleck with an arts degree with an answer to everything, but never has to face the consequence when "it's" wrong!

Every institution we use to trust, government, banks, corporations are all corrupt to the core. Nope, it won't change till a big reset comes, and many more people world wide are seeing it! The do-gooders have lost control and we let them!

"The do-gooders have lost control and we let them!"

Who is 'we' Raw mustard?
Is that you and all the do-badders?

Maybe it was the do-badders who live in America who insist on their 'right to bear arms', where almost every second citizen has a firearm of some sort, and yet it is one of the most violent countries on earth?

I suppose if we all had guns there would be no need for king hits at all, as the good 'ol bad boys would just shoot them dead instead. Yes, that's much better.

Yes indeed, let's all sling on a '44 and shoot 'em all up... Yee hah!

Suse how would you suggest I should defend myself.

I'm over 70, have trouble walking a hundred meters, & probably couldn't fight my way out of a wet paper bag today. I have given up flying when I go interstate, because of the dangers of riding a train home from the airport, & at $140 each way, taxis are too expensive. It is cheaper & safer for me to drive.

My home is out of town, but past some of the worst ethnic suburbs in Brisbane, suburbs where ethnic gang warfare is not uncommon. I have had a couple of trips home where I was the only non ethnic in a carriage, & a gang of half a dozen or more were eying my suitcase quite obviously. If not for a couple of extra passengers boarding, I was in trouble.

There is absolutely no protection for the public on these trains, or at most of the stations. We have let this garbage into our country with no apparent thought of how to deal with them.

Meanwhile we have these fool planners & academics, wanting to force everyone into public transport. It is patently obvious that these fools have never ridden a train at night, alone. If they had, even an academic would see it is not something advisable for anyone.

What would you advise me, & others to do, when we can no longer hold a drivers licence.

The states in America that have the most guns have the least crime. An inconvenient truth for you I'm sure, little Susie. Look up the facts they're there for you to cry over! Best you go back to wiping bed pans like the good little girl that you are and let the big boys take care of your community. You failed!

What would you advise me, & others to do,
Hasbeen,
Now you're getting silly on us what with asking Suseonline for a solution ? You have a better chance of getting one of those king-hitting ethinc thugs do help you across the street before Suseonline will ever come up with something in defence of decency.

o sung wo and others have noted the fact these thugs see the act as making them look tough.
I too share the view they have a wrong self image.
Hasbeen points to a truth, he, me and most victims would have little chance of defending our selves against any attack, let alone a sudden unseen one.
Today we see yet another victim fighting for his life.
DAMN me if you must but yesterday we saw in cc footage an African GANG bash an Indian Student then kick him in the head.
I know so too surely does raw mustard we are not going to hand out twice the sentence we do for murder to these offenders.
But warn until the PC monster leaves us alone,until the costs of confinement are not measured when sentence are handed down.
We will be victims of criminals.
I propose we nominate and vote for Magistrates and as many levels of judges as we can to forever get rid of the wrong people on the bench giving the wrong verdicts at our expense.
Our justice system is as old and shaggy as the wigs on the heads of its far from average law givers.

Oh for goodness sakes, you lot are paranoid about everything!
Are we seeing the elderly being king hit left right and centre?
No, it's predominantly young men, and not always 'ethnic' people either.

Hasbeen, I do feel worried about our safety on the the street, and even in our homes, but I just don't see gun-toting vigilantes as the answer.

And no, just like everyone else, I don't have the answers to the violence in our society.
Raw Mustard, I don't believe you about less violence where most guns are owned in America. You need to provide the proof for your claims, not me.

The only thing I can think of is shutting all pubs, clubs and bottle shops by midnight every night of the year.

The police are constantly saying that the violence on the streets IS caused by excess alcohol consumption, and illicit drug taking.

Having worked in hospital emergency departments over the years, I can certainly say that Friday and Saturday nights were filled with alcohol related violent injuries.
And no, the bulk of the perpetrators and victims were not 'ethnic'.

Suseonline,
Again, you're not saying what to do about the offenders, no again you're making everyone else pay the price that only the offenders should have to pay.
I put it to you this way, what would you do about tonight to stop the vilence ? I would immediately taser anyone who falls out of line, no eniency whatsoever. Furthermore, I would make the Army Police deputies for tonight and have them mingle in civvies & as soon as someone starts being stupid handcuff them to a post or rail or tree. Simply disable them. Do same with those coming to their defence.

While I agree with you about pubs closing at say 10 PM would have a great effect Suse, it would not cure all the problems.

When I was a boy pubs closed at 6.00 PM, remember the 6 o'clock swill. Then it went to 10 PM, to be more civilized they said. Yer right, civilized. Now of course it's anything goes, & we cause all this trouble.

However the pub/club areas are easy to avoid. No closing time will make it safe for a girl, or bloke, on their own, to ride our trains. My worries were both at a little after 7.00 PM, on the airport train, after it had passed through the city. Obviously the pickings look better to these ethnic hoods, when you have a large suitcase in tow.

I'm not too worried at home, I have a couple of largish dogs, who scare most off, & access to weapons if required, but out in public the only defense for someone like me, would be a handgun.

The do gooders have won. They have filled our streets with ethnic garbage, & taken the only defense of a single person against a gang from us. We are left to cower at home. I know what I'd like to do to night club owners, & do gooders.

Suseonline, "Raw Mustard, I don't believe you about less violence where most guns are owned in America. You need to provide the proof for your claims, not me"

LOL, you sure have some gall to say that, considering how many times the numbers and other facts have been put before you.

Once again, in the US violence including with guns is almost exclusively black on black, gangs and drugs. FBI and other links have been provided for you numerous times. You also boast that you disregard such evidence and links that are put before you. So I write this for others, not in any hope of assisting you to remove the eye patch, which is impossible for you to do. Besides, you do get a buzz out of your stirring.

I should know, because I have gone to the trouble of providing evidence to you myself. I have also pointed out your shabby arguing trick of conflating such crime with the many thousands of respectable, licensed, law-abiding gun owners both in the US and in Australia. The fact is that you continually post the very same, silly inflammatory statements, over and over again, as you do when you 'diss' men. Perhaps there is just one theme there too - 'awful' men.

This is what prejudice is, isn't it? When you continue to come up with the same inflammatory mish-mash allegations while disregarding all evidence to the contrary.

But then again, you have said several times that you come to the site to indulge in you favourite sport of 'headbutting'. As foolish as that pastime of stirring might seem to others, you do get your attention and shot of dopamine I suppose. There are better ways to do that, maybe a walk in a park and smile at someone.

Susionline for the most part we agree.
And for sure on the thought carrying guns is madness.
But fair go mate!these king hits are real and ignore age.
http://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/drunk-mormons-bashed-random-stranger/story-fnii5v6w-1226792197941
Hope this link works.
It tells of two Mormons Drunk on the street and attacking a stranger, focus us a bit not all hoons are from bad back grounds.
My story about Sydney pubs in the 60,s and 70,s was to state clearly once fights in the street came about as two or more males wanted a fight.
Far from the king hit mob out there now, quite frankly you need to read the papers more.
Nine on line one is full of king hit story's from around this country near daily.
Tonight will be worse.

Dear O Sung Wu,

The following link may be of interest:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/stop-alcoholfuelled-violence-its-killing-our-youth-20131202-2ym64.html

We're told that binge drinking has become a huge problem and
is linked with one in eight deaths for people under twenty five.

The author suggests that we need to look at society's
attitudes towards the culture of alcohol consumption as
alcohol related violence is a serious problem. It took
us a long time to look at smoking and its consequences.
Perhaps the same needs to be done with the excesses of
alcohol. Perhaps the message needs to be put out
to the public - that it's not allright
and acceptable to go out and get blind drunk and hurt people.

G'day all...

Every single person who've consented to contribute to this topic are RIGHT !

BELLY my friend, your last sentence stated inter alia - '...our justice system is as old and shaggy, as the wigs on their heads...'?

I'd have disagree with you old friend with this summation ? I believe it's because our old laws no longer possess any further relevancy, in this enlightened age of socialism and legal reformation ! In fact, the old laws actually worked quite well in my opinion.

You see, when I first joined the job, these street thugs headed for the hills when they first saw the F150 round the corner. Because the coppers in those days had a bit of 'clout' (I Don't mean violence against those in custody) and they knew they'd be pinched if they gave the coppers any 'attitude', to use the modern vernacular.

Further, you'd put them in front of the old Stipendiary Magistrate, and you could bet they'd not leave, without first costing them a decent quid or, they'd cool their heels for a while, either at the Bay or out at Parramatta ?

Today, this simply doesn't happen, particularly with minority groups, they knew they enjoyed a special 'consideration', both from the judiciary and to extrapolate further - the politicians ?

I'm very sorry BELLY, I don't mean to contradict what you say concerning the 'old laws'. I do appreciate though, what you and others have admitted. Because of age and other physical infirmities, we're unable to adequately defend ourselves from a violent attack.

That is absolutely disgraceful, in the year 2013 soon to be 2014 ? A government, any government that allows it's senior citizens and it's women and children to live in a climate of fear, from these 'people' whenever that need to go into a public place, is deplorable in my opinion. Personally I have to use a walking frame when getting about. I suppose I'd be 'easy meat' for most of these thugs ?

Many thanks also FOXY for that interesting Canberra Times link, I'll speak later apropos that article.

Foxy, "that it's not allright and acceptable to go out and get blind drunk and hurt people"

What you need to understand is that it is the victims are several sheets to the wind and that makes them ideal targets for the gutless assailants who are usually NOT drunk, but may pretend to be. What better killing field for offenders than in or near a licensed social venue late at night when the targets are defenceless and off-guard through merriment and alcohol?

Police are advising youths to drink less so as not to present as a target. Much the same advice authorities might give to reduce the risk of muggings, or sex molestation.

It is most unlikely that ordinary young men and women will injure one another when drunk. An incident would only be shoving. A blow (most unlikely) would be lacking in power and misdirected. It takes training and forethought to really hurt. It gets nasty when there are jackals loose among the sheep. There are many sly gutless brutes and their cheer squads about and they have their methods of operation down to a tee.

You really need to sit down with a cop one day and listen. I don't say that disrespectfully. Ordinary office workers have no idea of how the 'other half' live and nor do I, but I have learned a bit through sporting and voluntary interests. Bashing the daylights out of marks is a pastime for some and we are even importing more who use weapons as the first option.

Suse,

I'm 79 getting close to 80, could you give me a suggestion as to how I might successfully defend myself against an 18 year old, fellow male, who attacks me?

seeing small kids chuck tantrums while their mothers (often fatherless) refuse to discipline them says it all. The Spock, feminist,no smacking brigade have the obvious outcome of their dogma.

society's attitudes towards the culture of alcohol consumption as alcohol related violence is a serious problem
Foxy,
Yes & as a society we must demand & expect of each other that we accept if we step out of line we cop the consequences. Unfortunately, the do-gooders cowering behind PC are large enough in number to have done away with preventative action. Now it's innocent until proven guilty even in the face of street brawling. Guilty straight away & they can prove themselves innocent in jail after they have sobered up.

All the hotels and clubs should close at say 11PM. It seems crazy that night clubs and hotels in the city are open well into the morning. As bouncers and staff often supplement their income by selling meth it is inevitable patrons crazed with the alcohol meth combination go onto the street looking for someone to hit

Another post on this same subject: The crap about suppressing names needs to be thrown out with the civil libertarians who promote it. Offenders should be forced to wear a T-shirt identifying them and their crime. My name is Joe Blogs and I am guilty of hitting “name” or stealing “item”. Anyone seeing Joe without his T-shirt must report him and he pays a fine or wears it another month.

Is Mise, "I'm 79 getting close to 80, could you give me a suggestion as to how I might successfully defend myself against an 18 year old, fellow male, who attacks me?"

First, don't live in Queensland or anywhere outside of NSW. It is only in NSW where the Shooters and Fishers Party (SFP) has managed to change the law to give back rights to victims of thugs who attack them.

Outside of NSW if you wake in the night to disturb a burglar who comes at you with a knife or steel wrecking bar and you injure him while defending yourself, you are certain to be arrested, finger printed, placed in a cell, interrogated for hours like a common criminal and charged. You will be required under a reversed standard of proof to defend your act of defending yourself and your loved ones. Your freedom, assets and job will be at stake. You will be required to prove that you were in fear of harm and your force was not a smidgen more than necessary to restrain the assailant.

In NSW you will still be thrown into the watch house, interrogated for hours and charged. You will still have to face public humiliation. You will still have to spend a fortune on legal representation. However, you will not face the reversed standard of proof. The onus will be on the prosecutor to prove you weren't in fear for example. You will have your normal rights back in that respect which is a big thing and should save you from being rail-roaded into gaol.

Australia, the land of Political Correctness where victims of crime are re-victimised by a foul reversed standard of proof that protects offenders. Not so in NSW though, thanks, S&FP.

Hi there IS MISE...

You ask, quite rightly I believe, what methods are available to you at aged nearly eighty years, to defend yourself from a violent attack ?

I Sir, have no real answer for you I'm afraid. If you choose to carry 'anything' that is designed to be used as a weapon, or with the intent to use it as a weapon...sadly it's against the law ! I've heard many women for example, openly state they carry a long hat pin, or a knitting needle, and would have no hesitation in using it should they be attacked ? Try explaining your actions to detectives after you've just defended yourself, and the attacker has suffered a serious injury... well look out ! Only the mercy of the Court prevails.

I believe there's another person on this Forum, who has been, or is a copper, if so I wish he or anyone else, would prove me wrong in law ?I'd be very glad to hear that I'm in error, and we citizens could now carry 'stuff' that may be utilised as a weapon, if we're ever attacked ?

Hi there FOXY...An interesting article by Dr Jennifer PILGRIM, in the Canberra Times; concerning the seriousness of binge drinking by our young people. Is drinking the only problem do we think ? Perhaps illicit drugs (ICE particularly) are another growing menace. As I mentioned in a previous thread, the growing need to generate a 'tough guy' image in order to intimidate and threaten by using ominous gestures, in order to standover friends and associates - AND yes, even some smaller, younger police do occasionally yield to this type of bullying behaviour ? Though in my personal experience it's rare that a young female constable will allow herself to be intimidated, believe it or not, though she may well be frightened !

This is a very big and complex question. And I have no real answers either. Perhaps we're shutting the gate well after the horse has bolted ? I don't know ? Thank you FOXY.

Good evening to you SUSEONLINE...

I've just re-read some of your threads and I believe you're correct on many fronts with your arguments.

Permitting easier access to F/A's purely for self protection, is a very dangerous pursuit. Police have to undergo many hours of training with their official F/A particularly with 'shoot don't shoot judgement scenarios. Even then, many coppers end up being castigated by the Coroner, for a poor judgement shooting.

Only my own opinion you understand SUSE ? But I think carrying a gun for protection is a very dangerous game, it creates all sorts of false illusions and security, even 'dutch courage' purely because you're carrying a loaded gun. I've heard those who know say, it makes a small man very much bigger, when he's got a loaded gun in his possession ? Another thing, you cannot un-shoot someone once that 9mm steps out of that muzzle.

There's no doubt at all, there is a place for F/A's but not issued to every citizen who wants one, purely for their own protection. Are there any other viable (protective), non-lethal options available to the average citizen ?

There's the usual array of Propriety Chemical incapacitants like, OC spray, CN, CS, even DM, for extreme cases. None of these are legal in any Australian State I believe. The good old 'stun gun', the 'Tazer', even the 'shok baton' to mention just a few...all of which are deemed non-lethal. But regrettably, none of these options are available to anyone in this country. Thus all are considered to be totally illegal either, to possess, to carry, or to use. Other then those authorised in Law Enforcement.

The only real and lawful option available to any of us, is to call Triple 000 and hope the coppers arrive in a timely fashion.

Is Mise, I understand how frightening it is for the elderly in our community, but I have patched up far more older citizens after falls or accidents in their own homes, than I ever have after they were victims of violence.

Young thugs would more likely use your gun against you, because your responses are much slower now.

Can I respectfully suggest you make yourself as safe in your own home as possible, and only go out with other people with you.

O Sung Wu, thank you.
You are always a voice of reason :)

I must admit, I have often wanted to be able to carry some sort of pepper spray, but the cops say it is often used by attackers against the owner of the spray.

The police know what they are talking about, because they see and deal with violence all the time.
If they say we should not carry guns or other weapons, then I think I will listen to them rather than 'armchair would-be vigilantes'.

Fooled again Suse. If you believe the cops telling you that we are safer unarmed, you are a little naive. In my district there are likely to be 2 cops on duty at night, to cover 2500 square kilometers. Anyone who expects help from the cops as the speeding add says, "is a bloody idiot".

It is the same as believing that every K over is a killer. How senior cops can, with a straight face, say such things is amazing, as are their adds. Remember the one that said if you don't wear a seat belt your internal organs will damage themselves against your ribs in a crash. I have yet to see a seat belt that keeps your organs off your ribs, but many actually believe the garbage.

Come on o sung wu, give us the real reason the cops want us disarmed, if they do. Is it cops scared of an armed populous, or is it politicians who fear their "subjects" if armed, & use the authority of the cops to try to prevent such an eventuality?

I keep a strung bow available. These are still legal, probably as most could not hit the barn wall, [from the inside] with one. I would rather be in one piece to fight in court if necessary, rather than a battered pulp in a hospital bed.

I have just received my weapons licence renewal application, so had better make sure my steel box is locked as required, incase I get inspected. The last time there was about a ton of bagged fertiliser in front of the cabinet, & the cop didn't feel like climbing over it.

Hasbeen, I hope you will check if someone on your property IS there to cause you damage before you shoot them down with an arrow?

If you shot them for no good reason other than a decent dose of paranoia, how do you think you would fair in the court system?

Aren't we discussing how to deal with the 'King-Hit' guys on the street in this thread?
I'm not sure if you wandering around town with a loaded bow would go down too well with the law, but I may be wrong...

update..on..last years 'action'
was roughed..up by some king hitting thug
who dragged his knuckle hard..on..my chest..[oh well..at least im not dead]

anyhow court..on 14 th..of jan
no..doudt they will..not have..'the tapes'..not the watch house tapes [again]./.they loose 25000..of them/by the time prostitution VETS them[i will be revealing..its a pattern.]

my chest feels like gravel rash
but i..had my say..[on queens warf rd]
went with 25 joints..decided..i would find location..to smoke them
[was down to my..last one..and the FINALLY had to arrest me..sat within 10 meters..of the blue boys..chain smoked..all bar one

they ripped my biker jacket
[but refused to/charge..for free association]..though they did hint they would lock/me in isolation..but in the end..was out 2 hours later

after i got out..went back to the same spot
and smoked some more..fire works..look/better on tv

aNYHOW ANOTHER PAGE..done*

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/man-in-hospital-after-fight-in-kings-cross-20131231-304vt.html?google_editors_picks=true
Fair enough o sung wo, I never claim to be always right.
However I stick to my view, that is that our system is ruled by pumped up princes in wigs out of far gone centenary and quite often are the law, no matter what is the crime.
The link could be from any night people go our to play.
And the fact some escape true sentences is insulting to the victims.
If mandatory sentence for every such assault was in place?
I think, sorry but am convinced, those calling for hand guns are proposing madness.
And too am thankful this country will NEVER allow it.
I can see kids shot for bouncing balls in some posters thoughts here

Suse,

You said "Is Mise, I understand how frightening it is for the elderly in our community, but I have patched up far more older citizens after falls or accidents in their own homes, than I ever have after they were victims of violence.

Young thugs would more likely use your gun against you, because your responses are much slower now.

Can I respectfully suggest you make yourself as safe in your own home as possible, and only go out with other people with you."

All that I asked was how could I protect myself, you seem to think that a gun is the answer and I agree with you but even though I am highly trained in firearms use and more highly trained than any policeman who is not ex-military, i.e. has only received police training, I am not allowed a firearm or anything else for the purpose of lawful self defence.

Admittedly my response times are now much slower and it would now take me at least 2 seconds to draw and fire rather than the half second as of yore but at least I'd have a chance, and a chance is what my Government and the legion of do-gooders would deny me. They would rater that I become another statistic and, let's face it, once we reach an age when we cease to pay taxes we are a liability on society so if one of our protected thugs removes us then it's really a plus.

To restrict myself to only going out accompanied is to deny my rights as an Australian citizen and is a suggestion that I find rather amazing from anyone who lives in a supposedly free society.

Calling 'OOO' is not an option as before I had explained to the operator where I was and with reference to the nearest identifier (usually a cross street), the nature of the problem etc., the thug/s would have stolen the phone (if I let him!!).

Further to the above:
my youngest son,(just turned 20), left to return to Queensland half an hour ago; before he left we had a go at Indian Wrestling (Nth American style) and I only beat him 4 times out of 5, first time he's ever won a bout. He is taller and heavier than me and very strong and he tries hard, 'tis a shame to be slipping but experience still wins, most of the time.

<The only real and lawful option available to any of us, is to call Triple 000 and hope the coppers arrive in a timely fashion>

You have the right to self defence. The International Socialist 'Progressives' have been unable to take that away in their back-room tweaks of Australian law. There would have been an clamour world-wide if they did. Notwithstanding that they have been able to reverse the standard of proof for victims while criminal offenders got more rights. More rights would you believe! Is it any wonder victims' rights groups have been springing up?

Could any soldier, sailor or airman who made the ultimate sacrifice to win back freedom from tyrants in WW2 have ever imagined that some decades later Australians themselves would have their right to self defence curtailed by sly International Socialists, the Fabians, with their 'Progressive' tweaks of laws behind closed doors?

Of course it isn't only in Australia that the Marxists aka International Socialists aka Fabian Socialists aka 'Progressives' have been active interfering in domestic politics, and in the politics of other countries.

I am not asking for the right to use any manner of weapon. I am about an issue far more serious and fundamental to our freedom. Although there are a couple here who would misconstrue my aim and the aim of victims' groups too. So set aside the ridiculous and fallacious Strawman diversions and provocations.

What victim groups are demanding from government, and I support them, is that the foul, unfair reversed standard of proof that re-victimises victims of attacks be amended, as it was in NSW. Change it now!

It is an outrage that ordinary law-abiding citizens who through no fault of their own have been forced to defend themselves and their loved ones in their own homes are then charged and the onus put on them to defend their own actions, to prove they were actually in fear.

Get rid of the reversed standard of proof NOW! NSW has already done so and thanks are due to the Shooters & Fishers Party.

Happy New Year to you Is Mise.
You sound like you are in good shape.

I do see where you are coming from Is Mise, but I say again you are far more likely to get hurt from a fall or an accident than get bashed by a 'thug' at this stage of your life.

I still think that arming the elderly citizens 'just in case' they are accosted by thugs, is a very rocky road.
Failing eyesight is just one problem they may have, and I can see tragic mistakes being made if they have use of guns and are feeling vulnerable.

I don't know what the answer is, other than more mandatory sentencing for random acts of violence against innocent citizens.

I do understand the frustration of the system.
Several years ago, a relative of mine was murdered by pistol whipping to the head, and the murderer was given 7 years jail, even though he couldn't remember where he buried the body!

He's out now of course, but that family have no body to bury.
I believe if there is no body, they should be kept in jail until it is found...

Is Mise, I understand how frightening it is for the elderly in our community, but I have patched up far more older citizens after falls or accidents in their own homes, than I ever have after they were victims of violence.
Suseonline,
Ah well, all is ok then, I don't know what we're worried about. osung wu et al are just paranoid eh ? Suse for everyone else's sake it would be a good thing if you actually experienced being a victim.
Anyone should be allowed to defend themselves with wahatever means are at hand at a moment's notice. If the craphead gets seriously insured or even better dead than good.
I for one m just saturated with being sick of do-gooder idiocy, I have had my whole life altered in a detrimental way by crapheads & moron do-gooders. Much of it just plain jealousy & racism. As I said I am sick of it all. Happy new Year !

Yes, Suse, I'm in good shape and thanks to the amount of taxpayers' money that a grateful Government spent on my 'education' I am still able to defend myself at close quarters as my training was primarily to kill, however I would prefer to be able to defend myself without having to get close and personal because physical strength matters; to use Indian Wrestling again as an illustration, my second son (now 39) is a giant of a man with immense strength) and I've never managed to come anywhere near beating him.

The State cannot protect its citizens from harm, even in their own homes, so neither the State nor any else has any right to disarm them and it's not just guns; it is an offence, punishable by law, to possess any thing for the purpose of self defence.

We can not treat this problem as if it did not exist.
But too we must remember the thoughts scwalled on those Rome walls from before the Christian era.
That is remember man has always thought the worst of those younger than him.
For that reason I am appalled at any thought we should carry guns.
And am not calling for long harsh sentences.
But I am calling for accountability, and a fixed minimum term in prison for this crime.
Remember, generations of folk have changed the law, not always in positive ways, to bring about changed behavior.
I propose a fixed two year team, to be served as a minimum for every offender convicted of this crime.
And confinement should if it is possible, be paid for by the convicted person, or work done to pay the costs.
We are told, and have every reason to believe prison is a University of crime, learning even more ways to offend.
I think at some time a brave reformist will come and among the changes to our system of law, a learning to live theme may be given in every prison.

G'day there HASBEEN and all the other good people out there...

You ask some good questions there HASBEEN;

'...come on OSW give us the real reason the cops want us disarmed - are the cops scared of an armed populace? and '...or do the politicians fear their subjects if they're armed - and use the authority of the cops to prevent such an eventuality...' ?

To be ABSOLUTELY truthful, I can't be sure ? Be in no doubt, our politicians, whether you like them or hate them, 'rule the roost'. During my 32 years, and having spoken to many in the job over that time (unofficially canvassing their views), most coppers, including myself, would be very concerned indeed if we in Oz lived in an armed climate similar to that which exists in the United States.

Imagine, if we were all permitted to purchase a F/A for our own protection, there are many people out there (of BOTH sexes) that I personally wouldn't want them armed with a water pistol, such is their level of social maturity, and personal responsibility !

I would bet every one of you, KNOW of such individuals ? Not that they're convicted criminals, or they're nuts. Rather you get a sense that they would be absolutely stupid, if you gave them a .38spec or a 9mm or similar. A N D because these weapons are highly concealable, you would never know which of them would be armed ?

Every copper in this country would be going on shift in a heightened level of stress and anxiety, even fear in some cases. Any copper who says otherwise is a liar.

The main problem being, if every adult citizen sought a licence to carry a handgun for self protection, and the law(s) throughout Oz changed and it was approved, unless the applicant is a convicted crook or a totally 'nuf nuf', we can't discriminate against any bona fide applicant. No matter what level of mandated training is a statutory requirement !

I'll continue again shortly.

Once again the clueless, the uninformed and the stirrers confuse illegal gun ownership and violence with the lawful possession and lawful pursuits of licensed owners.

Anyone can procure a firearm for whatever purpose s/he intends. The market is well supplied from abroad. Official stats prove that weapons used in gun crimes are most unlikely to have been stolen from lawful, licensed owners. That is from police stats.

It is only the respectable, law-abiding citizens who obey the laws, obtain licences and register. They are not the problem. They have nothing to do with the problem either. They are the good guys. Of course there are a few 'gun control' hoplophobes on the site (Hi to Suseonline!) who continually attack the law-abiding citizens while at the same time finding excuses for criminals. Figure that one out!

Returning to 'king hits', those attacking others and doing harm are the usual suspects the police would be expecting to assault and cause mayhem. The police can give the home addresses where the behaviour is modelled to them by mum and dad, and where they practice street pugilism and other time-filling negative pastimes. There is no need for research, academics, counsellors, education and so on. They only fear detection, arrest and incarceration. They should be required to work for the dole, to do real productive manual work, to keep them occupied.

It should be added that Australia's rapid (over-)population growth is contributing to the problem, as is importing more sociopaths from backward cultures. For the last mentioned, better migrant screening and send them back if they lie on an application or commit crimes or associate with criminals, within several years of arrival.

Of course it would be best if no-one carried a gun because as o sung wu says there are too many who could not control having a gun. My argument is that no-one should have a right to deny someone else's right to defend themselves.
If someone has a go at me then I should not have to weigh up the legal consquences of my defensice action. It is absolutely ludicrous that someone can make my life a misery yet I can not retalliate because of lack of witnesses. It's what's causing the breaking down of our society because you don't require witnesses to do wrong but when you try to do right you require witnesses. If someone is in my yard stealing I should be able to disarm them & tie them up not have to let myself get hurt & then charged for deprivation of liberty.
Australian Law is not Law it's a Joke.

<o sung wu says there are too many who could not control having a gun>

He couldn't be referring to the respectable citizens with licences. They don't commit gun crimes. That is so obvious as to require no further proof.

It follows that he must be referring to people who couldn't pass the hurdles to be awarded a licence. However those people can get whatever weapons they want anyhow, including firearms, and their preferred 'gangsta' ones at that.

If there were similar licensing hurdles and penalties for drivers licences there would be far less crime. Because cars provide the anonymity and mobility needed by criminals. The car is far more important and essential than a gun. Not an attractive proposition for many here though. But why not? Sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.

o sung wu I have seen on some of these cops shows, the fear, & danger to cop & offender in the US, when a cop apprehends a stolen car, or a suspected drug dealers car, with gun drawn.

This is of course, when they have reason to expect the apprehended will be a criminal of some sort. It is not the case with a normal traffic stop.

Surely with the growth of ethnic criminal gangs, & the tendency for them to be armed, the problem is not much less here today.

Of course, with such low police numbers, there is much less apprehension of criminals on the street by our cops, & probably in all areas. It is much more likely that most of our cops will be doing nothing more dangerous than manning a radar gun, collecting government revenue.

I know that in some areas of the UK the public has taken to taking potshots at speed cameras, but I have not heard, at least not yet, of motorists in Oz taking potshots at cops with radar guns, much as it might be deserved in some cases.

We have a spot locally, where reasonably steep hills on either side of a narrow valley descend to a short flat causeway over a creek. As most cars accelerate even on the overrun down these hills, it is a favorite spot for a radar trap.

Of course it traps those busy thinking of more important things than a K or 2 over the limit. If they ever took to stopping these drivers, rather than photographing them, I would expect some injured cops to result, such is peoples annoyance with this type of trap.

I called the Civil Libertarian outfit a few years ago & that moron O'Gorman answered the phone. I asked what option I would have with regard to juvenile breaking in & entering if I caught one of them. O'Gorman said "We're batting for the other team" & hung up.
Now, wouldn't it be nice if O'Gorman were to be done over & make him defend his assaillant.

Hi (again) HASBEEN...

And to conclude my answer to your multipronged question...

I reckon there are two specific issues that you can bet your bottom dollar on, with our governments;

(1) There is no government of any particular colour will ever legislate to return the Death Penalty, despite rising homicide figures across the board; and,

(2) Neither will any government introduce legislation to relax the existing gun laws in Australia. Furthermore, it's far more plausible that if anything, the existing gun laws will more than likely be strengthened, given the pervasiveness of ethnic shootings in and around the suburbs of south western Sydney.

Hi there ONTHEBEACH...

What you say is perfectly true, there are many decent F/A licence holders who actively pursue some form of sporting shooting. Most are licenced to use long arms (rifles and/or shotguns). There are far fewer people who pursue pistol shooting. And you're correct, both classes are 'put through the hoops'. The latter, far more so.

There are very few people who are licenced to carry a concealed weapon for self protection, and generally it is confined to their vocational needs only. Including, Prison Officers, Cash in Transit guards, private security guards as an example. The above category of licence holders are permitted to carry a weapon only; to and from duty, whilst on duty and to and from mandated target practice.

There are even fewer private citizens who are licenced to carry, purely for their own personal protection, very few indeed. Any other person who carries a concealed weapon, other than those specified above, is unlicensed. Regrettable, these are the facts.

o sung wu,

Thanks you for your comments too.

You are probably aware I am only concerned about all States and territories following NSW's lead and removing the foul reversed standard of proof.

Regarding king hits, while I agree with rethctub that youth should avoid risk areas and risk times, I also believe that neutering the police forces to make 'police services' and other political correctness have resulted in the ferals taking advantage to wreak mayhem.

Crims and gangs know they are on to and they are making hay while the sun shines. They need to be brought back to Earth with a jolt.

As well, fewer police revenue raising on roads and set them against the crims as before.

Thanks for the thread.

Hi there INDIVIDUAL...

My friend, I'm no 'do-gooder' ! Far from it. All I've done is broadly explained the law as it exists today, essentially in NSW.

For me or any copper, to see the results of an elderly person, a women a child, in fact anyone for that matter, receive a beating from some filthy maggot...well, take it from me, we get real dark. As I've said often, 'we all bleed when we're cut'.

You see my friend, when we grab some low-life who's just handed-out a savage flogging to some helpless victim, we as police MUST exercise a great deal of (personal) self control. While we have them seated in the interview room, arrogantly smirking at us, knowing if we lay a hand on them, well these days you'll do your job ? If they cop boob, then the word might leak out, or something, I've forgotten now.......?

Anyway, we'll leave it at that, shall we ? Many thanks for your contribution INDIVIDUAL, it's much appreciated.

O Sung Wu, no matter what the facts are regarding gun laws and gun usage in this country, you will never change the minds of many who frequent this forum.

Individual hates Australia's laws re arming its citizens, and would prefer packing some personal metal so he can be judge, jury and executioner to whomever may upset/frighten him. Maybe you should move to Texas?

Onthebeach "He couldn't be referring to the respectable citizens with licences. They don't commit gun crimes. That is so obvious as to require no further proof."

Really?

What about all the people that steal or use the guns from these 'model citizens' who like playing cowboys and Indians?
What about the 'respectable' gun owner whose wife annoys him by leaving him, and he suddenly turns into a crazed killer?

As far as I am concerned, any non-farmer, non-military or non-law enforcer who wants to own a gun, has to have some aggressive tendencies.

One only has to look at the loving son who used his respectable mother's many licenced guns to slaughter the 20 Sandy Hook kids and their teachers last year, to mention just one of many gun murders committed in the trigger happy US .
(he was white too...)

No, we don't want to be like the US, which is why so many people want to emigrate here.

dear suze..the..sandy hoook thing was a kid on ritolin
what graduated up..the drug sceme..to anphetomines
he was doped up/

/so lets not let the doctors out of
a situation..POOR/DOCTORING SET UP..

blame the pill merchants formost of these nutters shooting/innocents
[recall the LOOK.of the batman killer..HE WAS FULLY TRIPPING..you could see he was drugged to the eye-balls..BY DOCTORS*[sic*]

its so easy..using the drug pharmacology sales pitch..to HIDE the real issues..TOOO EASY PILL..ABUSE..one in..100 HOSPITAL.. admissions=adverse reaction..to PRESCRIBED..drugs

ONE IN TEN RESULTS IN..DEATH*
add/in booze..and pathetic doctering..there you go
even worse biased policing [hyped up on drugs as much/as adrenalin
or just SHOWING OFF the latests TRICK..ONLY DOCTERS USE..[like WAS DONE TO ME LAST YEAR/yesterday..THE fool could have killed me]

and thre autopsy..WOULD have blamred it on the docters/trick
the idiot was EITHER taught..or SAW a docter DOING..but he was to busy showing off to..concern about a doper[well we shall see him in court[i..have two doctors reports]..and im..angry

intented murder..is serious
its officialdom-feasance at the minimum
this HUGE fat..POLICE GUY..tried to kill me..last night
and the thughs[rum corpse]..is the key problrem..thenoigo aftrer WHO EVER TAUGHT HIM..the 'trick'[till their super is gone and the police union coffer is empty]

tryu treating a passivize drunk..like i was treated./.last night

they declared war on,me last night

but i dont need a gun..I.GOT LAW BOOKS..and the law of her majesty
as well as patent/real estate and heraldic law[one ignoraant police person..unsealed the ichin..from/the golden horn..and somehow lost three straws..i call that COLLUDED/interference with my freedom..of religion..that i will trace back..to the source.

like tearing out pages of the koran/bible
[l;ucky my guides alerted me[but sadly..a woman police officer released a curse..from the exism crystal..[a bad male demon..

i didnt plan this..and can only advise her to get./.smoked

BUT two guys upset my heraldic honour
i want them..on the stand..then my guides will..correct their grievousness error..[i want them both sacked][and if the missing straws arnt returned..they will be left to the spirit..to remedy..thats who/they defiled..[..in..ignorance/maybe../i hope]

The gun issue is quite different to the original king-hit topic. Given some of their comments regarding gun crime committed by registered gun owners (or using registered weapons) I've tried to find some data on that. So far no overall coverage but I did find an interesting piece on hand gun crime with some coverage of general gun crime and legal status.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/361-380/tandi361/view%20paper.html

"The majority of firearms used to commit homicide in Australia since 1989-90 were held unlawfully at the time. Of the 150 offenders known to have used a handgun to commit homicide, 12 percent were licensed firearms owners and two percent had used a registered handgun. Considering all firearms (n=313),15 percent of offenders held a firearms licence and 11 percent of firearms used were registered."

R0bert

HASBEEN...

You'll get no argument from me, on this whole traffic management policy, which more often than not, is regulated by traffic engineers.
Many cops, me included believe much of the radar speed interdiction is no more than simple revenue gathering. And one would wonder if all drivers carefully obeyed all road rules the government would go broke ? The do need traffic infringements as another reliable revenue source.

No sensible person would deny some drivers need to lose their licence or be decisively regulated in the way they operate a M/V. Some traffic laws are important and must be enforced. Though some of the 'marginal' recorded speeds detected on the KR ll is absolute rubbish. Therefore how in hell can you ask a motorist to respect police and more importantly obey the traffic laws, when he's unjustly penalised for being marginally over the posted limit ?

Without the public's respect and their co-operation, it really makes it tough for police to enforce any law in reality.

Hi SUSEONLINE...

I'm not sure I agree with what you've said apropos gun ownership for legitimate sporting pursuits. Many licensed gun owners are very responsible with all facets of gun safety. Including safe storage, handling, and shooting responsibly.

Having read and re-read both threads from INDIVIDUAL and ONTHEBEACH, I can readily understand the frustration they face, with what they perceive as paradoxical and capriciousness in the law.

Oh well, we all have our opinions I guess ? Thank you SUSEONLINE for your excellent contributions on this highly topical subject!

It is painfully obvious that some contributors here have led a cosy protected life & therefore are incapable of understanding what it means to be a victim not once but over & over again because of a Law which focusses on protecting the assaillant rather than the victim.
The reason why criminals are in jail is to protect them from retalliation by their victims/ victims relatives.
Some people have no qualms to force a victim live a life of misery as long as the culprits live a live in jail that their victims could never afford. A bloke I know down the road from me who got put away for 12 months for being a kiddie fiddler. He had terribly rotten teeth. When that piece of crap came out he had a perfect set of teeth compliments of the taxpayer. Many people I know go to work everyday & they can't afford to see dentist & if they do they have to wait up to 18 months. As I said Australian Law is made up of a large amount of jokes.
There are blokes in our community who have bashed, broken into homes, stolen boats etc yet they are better off than most of us. Suseonline just wait till something happens to you, it'll be interesting to what degree you change your tune. o sung wu I'm sorry if you thought I included you in my do-gooder remarks, I didn't.

O SUNG WU,

You earlier mentioned water pistols, now there is a class of weapon that should be strictly regulated but which anybody can buy without a licence or any kind of check. Scary.

Hi there IS MISE...

You know you're right ! With many parts of the country experiencing water restrictions and drought, one must be very prudent as to who is licensed to possess and use a water pistol ?

Hi there INDIVIDUAL...

Not a problem my friend, I was pretty sure I was not included within the 'do gooder' classification ? Though, if that was the worst thing some people have accused me of, I'd be very happy man indeed.

Goodnight all, the old eyes tire easily at this time of the evening.

Come on Suse, are you trying to make me waste money.

Where the hell else am I going to get free blood & bone fertiliser, other than these trespassers.

actually..the biggest killer is usa is the coat hanger
[since the vietnam war..over 65 million aborted children

we need to license coat hangers IMMEDIATELY
so many UNREGISTERED coat hangers
its mayhem..out there

i rekon..any fool caught with an unregistered coat hanger
give em life..[heck..giv-em the chair..HOW DARE THEY?

Is Mise, "You earlier mentioned water pistols, now there is a class of weapon that should be strictly regulated but which anybody can buy without a licence or any kind of check. Scary."

LOL

Sadly the ratbag, hysterical hoplophobes have been there too. You may have seen the fluoro orange cap on the barrel tip of toy guns. Can't have some serially upset thirty-something 'Feminist Mother Goddess and her wonderful grrl' being 'shocked' by 'vile violent boys with toy guns' can we?

Anything that could be construed as a (Gasp) gun (sorry, 'automatic, high-powered, sniper military assault gun') is restricted by registration or banned outright.

To me the whole debate is about the moral right of individuals having the right to defend their gift of life by whatever means they are comfortable with. I judge a persons moral caliber by how they respect the right of others and how they respect the right of others to protect(defend) themselves and their family in the face of danger, whether that be facing a criminal intent on doing them harm or fighting off nature trying to destroy their home and their person.

Anyone that denies a law abiding citizen who has never shown or been involved in any crime the right to defend their gift of life and that of their family and property has such a broken moral compass I can only assume they have mental problems and need help or they have an agenda which more than likely will not be conducive to people living a free and happy life. They are a danger to society and are responsible for the needless deaths of millions of people world wide!

As society degrades further into the quagmire or minority control and the suppression of human instinct, only those that have prepared to defend themselves and their compatriots will be left to bring any sanity back into this world.

I'm disappointed in your reply to me, o sung wu. From your reasoned and sensible opinions(observations) on the encroachment of the left and their violent attraction to power over others, I would have thought in your age acquired wisdom and experience, your moral compass would have pointed you in the right direction, I guess I was wrong?

The gift or life is sacred to me and if someone wants to threaten my gift of life, then they will pay with their own if I have any say in it and to hell with the law and those that think they have the right to play god and decide whether I get to live or die by the hand of a criminal!

cont'd

I've already had a son bashed to near death by a bunch of new Australians and a daughter constantly hounded by same that have no respect for our woman folk. Every week I witness the removal of blood stains from another stabbing at our major shopping complex. I've witnessed police refuse to leave their cars when confronted by numbers of well tanned thugs with baseball bats playing gladiator on our school football fields.

I can only assume it's going to get worst. These times are a direct result of the do-gooders thinking they can save the world by destroying perfectly working and peaceful societies. A POX on them all and their brain dead families!

I jest not about water pistols or the larger carbine/rifle versions, all are capable of projecting dangerous liquids that can blind (temporally or permanently) and which can seriously damage the mouth etc.
Vinegar, methylated spirits and ammonia based cleaning solutions are freely available at the supermarket and then there is kerosene, petrol and brake fluid; the varieties of ammunition are numerous.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/new-year-same-mayhem-teenager-daniel-christie-gravely-ill-20140101-306cx.html
This link stuns me.
And shows the selfy at its worst.
The need to be seen stands out clearly.
And an open contempt for others.

o sung wo it is my view and I am sure many others, that you are a well informed gent.
That gent comes in your every posts,and I hope we can find ten more of you this year.
I however am a front row forward, it hasbeen my life,s way, tuck the ball under your arm and run.
I can not over look some posts in favor of guns, my view is solidly with those you polled, never relax our current laws.
Read my link of this morning folks, no time exists for most *king hit* victims to defend them selves.
And surely, please make it so! *most know* king hits would continue and murders by gun would become every day.
It has been my lifelong experience criminals will always have guns.
But giving every anti social fool is madness.

Belly,

Why was there not mayhem on the streets of NSW when "possess, use and carry" pistol licences were available to persons of good repute?
That is pre 1996 and when any citizen could own a long arm for self protection.

I don't notice any improvement.

King Hit merchants ought not be sent to jail but rather given a dozen of the best, with a cane, on the bare buttocks in public outside the local town hall on a Saturday morn at, say, 11 AM when there is sure to be an appreciative crowd.

I can not over look some posts in favor of guns,
Belly,
I am not in favour of guns either just as I am not in favour of having no right to defend myself & what's mine or someone else I want to protect. I don't actually want a gun I just want the right to defend myself be that with a gun or with a crow bar.
is mise is on the ball by public lashing of those vermin who do nothing but cause misery to others.
Look at it this way. Imagine at your wedding there was an incident of someone dying from being king hit. The culprit will get 25 years at most yet you'll have to wait for another 25 years before you can celebrate your golden anniveriary. Now if that person who died 50 years earlier can't attend your anniversary & celebrate whilst his killer can celebrate his 25th anniversary since being let out. Does make you feel great doesn't it ?
We only hear of statistics of people who died from attacks but those who survived have to keep living a miserable existence never get a mention.
Isn't it about time criminals get dealt with properly ? Let us defend ourselves without having to become criminals too. The ball is in the do-gooders court.

First Indy congratulation on a well put together and thought out post.
Is Mise too has a point, I never was a cop like our o sung wo or Chris Gaff.
But I was a country boy who wanted to see Sydney in my teen years, some of them.
Country blokes still like the bush dance a few beers and to test them selves in a fight or two.
Lets look mat self protection for us, those past 50 and even us older ones.
ANY weapon we produce ups the anti, makes our attackers free to use the same weapons against us.
Even more likely take ours of us and use it against us.
IF a mandatory term in prison for any such assaults was in place my view is, providing it was long enough, a reduction in these gutless things would result.
Convinced a day will come that changes the laws
I prose the future earnings of those convicted of acts of violence should have a prime tax put on the till they pay for their own confinement

< I am not in favour of guns either just as I am not in favour of having no right to defend myself & what's mine or someone else I want to protect. I don't actually want a gun I just want the right to defend myself be that with a gun or with a crow bar.>

You cannot afford people the right to defend themselves and deny them the right to use a suitable weapon with which to do so.

That's why guns were invented in the first place. They are the great equaliser. A 70 year old man can and still has the ability to fend of multiple attackers when in the possession of a gun. A small framed, attractive woman can stand as tall as a would be attacker or multiples of.

To say that they can be used against us is a fallacious argument, they already are, and we are defenseless!

Why is our law enforcement allowed them but private law abiding citizens are not? Is the life of a law enforcer more important that that of a citizen?

Belly,
I agree with what you propose & I want to add that compensating the victim should be heading the list. How many times do we hear of peoples' lives ruined because of some spoiled adolescent vermin. There are whole families in despair yet all our magistrates & defence Lawyers do is focus on the rights of the culprit. I dare say some of these Law people are in fact worse than the culprits yet they enjoy the protection that should actually be afforded to the victim.
People get their computers stolen & therefore their life gets turned upside down whilst the thief gets free access to computers & possibly even tution in jail.
It really is a joke ha ha.

Just so that we can all appreciate the thoroughness of our Law makers, here is the relevant NSW legislation:

"FIREARMS ACT 1996 - SECT 4D

Special provisions relating to imitation firearms
4D Special provisions relating to imitation firearms

(1) This Act applies to an imitation firearm in the same way as it applies to a firearm, subject to the following:
(a) the Commissioner may not issue a licence authorising the possession or use of an imitation firearm (except to a firearms dealer) but may issue a permit authorising the possession or use of an imitation firearm,
(b) an imitation firearm is not required to be registered.
(2) For the purposes of the application (as provided by this section) of this Act to imitation firearms:
(a) an imitation firearm that is an imitation of a pistol is taken to be a pistol , and
(b) an imitation firearm that is an imitation of a prohibited firearm is taken to be a prohibited firearm.
(3) In this section,
"imitation firearm" means an object that, regardless of its colour, weight or composition or the presence or absence of any moveable parts, substantially duplicates in appearance a firearm but that is not a firearm.
(4) However, an imitation firearm does not include any such object that is produced and identified as a children’s toy ."

< http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fa1996102/s4d.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=toy%20and%20pistols >

As water pistols are children's toys then the Act does not SEEM to apply, however if apprehended with a toy pistol in suspicious circumstances then the toy becomes a pistol (in practice).

Some criminals have fitted their real pistols with the orange plastic muzzle piece (that OTB mentioned) or painted one on, as it gives them a split second edge as anyone opposing them may hesitate to fire at someone pointing a children's toy.

We are in good hands, so fear not.

Hi there RAWMUSTARD...

I'm sorry that I've disappointed you. In my own defence, I'm simply giving you the legal position in which everyone of us is required to abide by.

Your point that you've witnessed police remain seated in their car when confronted by a gang of idiots with baseball bats...it really doesn't surprise me either. Can I account for their apparent dereliction, no I can't.

I'm very sorry to hear of your son's savage bashing and your daughter being hounded by what you say, are an ethnic gang ?

Mate, I can't begin to tell you how many times I've heard stories similar to yours ? Do I care ? Bloody hell, cause I do ! Can I do anything about it ? No, I can't. We have a legal structure in this country, for better or worse, where it's necessary to prove a person or persons has committed a crime. The burden of proof belongs to the accuser, that's the police.

On the odd occasion the coppers 'rough up' some mug, there's hell to pay...allegations of police brutality - I've even been accused of that ON THIS VERY FORUM, RAWMUSTARD ! By some boofhead who wouldn't know me from Adam.

RAWMUSTARD, I 'feel' for everything that's happened to you and your family, and I'm dreadfully sorry if some of my former colleagues have apparently let you and your family members down.

Personally, it's only my opinion, I strongly believe our society, (Western Society) is heading for a complete 'Meltdown'. I believe our streets and public places, will be gradually taken over by marauding and predatory gangs. Gangs emanating from all demographics, and ethnicities. And for some inexplicable reason, governments can't or won't do a damn thing about it !

It is not surprising that avowed feministas and hoplophobes like Suseonline would be unconcerned about how a male, even an older male might save himself from being crippled, disfigured or killed by an assailant in his home.

The unmentioned elephant in the room is the gender bias in self defence, or offence for that matter where a wonderful womyn wants to rid herself of that troublesome man in her life, which could include a man said to be uninvited at the time, or doing 'unacceptable' things in her vicinity.

Feminism and a pre-existing favourable stereotype assist women to take whatever action they like against a male as long as they rehearse the story a bit, and their sensitive, vulnerable flower status excuses some inexactitude in the story. Women can be expected to get emotional when sinking the Dexter Russell to the maker's name in the 'bastard's' neck and they might not remember things right. There are good enough stories already available on the Net for the fragile flower to lay in wait with a suitable pig gutting calibre for the claimed noxious husband to return from his day's labour.

It is one of those things that was once unheard of, but in recent decades suddenly battered wives found that there was a way. See here,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battered_woman_defense

Not defending the man if indeed he was a savage, unrelenting abuser. Just noting a difference in treatment: a woman can lay in wait with her weapon of choice for a known or unknown assailant or possible assailant, whereas a man who is suddenly confronted in his own home by an assailant with a wrecking bar or knife and injures the assailant while defending himself and loved ones will be charged and (outside of NSW) is likely to spend a long time in the slammer.

BTW, another difference is that the woman will get free legal support while the man will pay tens of thousands and even if acquitted will get nothing back.

Men, it sucks but you are on your own. Guess you already knew that.

OTB,
Yes indeed, women are the least likely to be victims of violence by a long mark yet they get the most funding and sympathy.
I always like to give the contrasting examples of the murders of Luke Mitchell and Jill Meagher.
Both people were innocent victims who died within a block of each other, late at night, though in different years.
An estimated 30,000 people marched down Sydney Rd in rememberance of Mrs Meagher and in solidarity with other female victims of violence.
I went to the rally organised by Steve Medhurst which sought to draw attention to violence against young men and at which Luke Mitchell's brother and others who'd lost young men spoke about their experience.
I'd estimate that there were about 60 people there on the steps of parliament house, even though it was promoted on 3AW, Ten News and ABC radio.
The Age is reporting that on new year's eve Sydney Hospitals admitted an average of two people an hour who'd been king hit or knocked unconscious by blows. How many of them would have been women? Would I be wide of the mark in guessing that none of the casualties were women?

Hi there IS MISE...

With respect my friend, nobody has ever been permitted to have a 'long arm' (rifle or shotgun) licensed for self protection from another. The fact that some do use them for that reason, doesn't mean it's legal. It's definitely not legal, before or after 1996.

The police and media humiliation of this male victim (see link below) was disgraceful, his particulars, unflattering photos and even a google map of the location of his home, were front page news. He was publicly humiliated.

http://tinyurl.com/male-victims-are-different

He was put in a cell, told SFA, interrogated for hours, treated as a common criminal, forced to spend thousands on legal assistance and even when finally vindicated, his reputation and financial affairs are in tatters. What about the effect of the crime and the re-victimisation on his mental state and wellbeing?

If he was a woman, there would have been a deluge of support from the highest level of government and the police force, and from the media.

Again, not trying to diminish the effect of crime on women either, but demonstrating the double standard that applies.

The victim Donald Brooke, is a human too. But he was treated very shabbily and that was in NSW where the Shooters and Fishers Party had thankfully successfully challenged and changed reversed standard of proof. Imagine what could have become of Donald Brooke in (say) Queensland, especially under the previous 'Progressive' Labor government of Anna Bligh? He would have been pilloried by the sensationalist media, detained by police and interrogated for weeks, destroyed psychologically and financially and likely would now be in a prison somewhere.

Men are not disposable. We have feelings too and a right to live and to protect our body and life. It is intolerable that a reversed standard of proof is applied to defence in the home, or in the street for that matter.

I am trying to imagine the dreadful clamour if it was young women who were being struck down in the street and rendered paralysed mental basket cases, or killed. It wouldn't be, 'Oh just ban late venue hours, that will do', would it?

RAWMUSTARD...

Again I must draw your attention to another statement you made.

You ask why are law enforcement permitted to carry F/A's and law abiding citizens aren't - are the lives of law enforcement personnel more important than that of a private citizen ?

I find that an extraordinary comment you've made ? I really don't believe it even warrants an answer - ALL BLOODY LIFE IS PRECIOUS ! ALL LIFE !

Thank you for your contribution RAWMUSTARD.

Hi there BELLY...

This is a topic that should've been left well alone. I can quite understand why many people are annoyed at some of our strange laws concerning self protection.

Seemingly the crooks can do as they like with gay abandon, yet the citizen who does no wrong is (seemingly) denied any meaningful measures in which to protect themselves. Particularly those at most risk ?

As I said in an earlier thread, I sincerely believe we're headed for a complete 'Meltdown' in our Western Culture, of our entire social fabric, both on our streets and public places.

I believe in time, we will witness gangs of marauding and predatory young men, emanating from many differing ethnic mixes, together with other equally disenfranchised young people, roaming about our cities and towns looking for trouble and easy marks. If it's evidence you want, you need look no further than the UK. London, Manchester, Birmingham and other provincial cities, and not forgetting France and their masses of OMC groups... I think the symptoms are evident for all to see... ? And if it's guns you want, the United States have a few, I'm led to believe.

Still our governments continue to seek solutions from your erstwhile social engineers, though well intentioned, most are devoid of any pragmatic and permanent answers. Leaving us, the population to continue to lurch and wallow about, in a sea of indecision.

O SUNG WU.

Before 1996 there was no registration of long arms in NSW so one was at liberty to purchase and keep one handy to use as required and if one wanted it for protection then that was perfectly lawful. It was after 1996 that Self Defence was ruled to not be a genuine reason to acquire a legal long firearm.

Be it noted that the prime mover of this restriction on safety was John Winston Howard, who personally had armed protection.

ALL BLOODY LIFE IS PRECIOUS ! ALL LIFE !
o sung wu,
I trust you mean all decent life because I don't think low life deserves any sympathy whatsoever.

Hi there INDIVIDUAL...

Silly me, a mere slip of the tongue my friend.

Hi there IS MISE...

I don't propose to argue with you my friend, as a retired Det.Sgt, I've got a reasonably good idea as to the F/A laws in NSW as it existed prior to '96 and thereafter. It is quite true however, prior to 1996, a legitimate reason need not be furnished to police, in order to own a rifle or shotgun.

Your comments apropos the former PM John Howard, had his own 'armed protection' ? Your knowledge on this matter is obviously superior to mine

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/the-father-of-bondi-beach-bashing-victim-michael-mcewen-reaches-out-to-the-family-of-daniel-christie-and-calls-for-action/story-fnii5s41-1226793793460
0 sung wo, no mate never!this link proves what was already clear.
This thread and the open discussion this country is having had to come.
Mate do not be confronted by some posters displaying an inability to stay within the bounds set firmly by public opinion.
The link should open minds and eyes, with luck hearts too.
We just can not continue to turn our heads and forget it could be our family hurting today.
A real life event may have a message in it for you.
Some years ago, at a truck rollover three truck drivers crawled to the only police officer then on site.
It became so bad I said *have you blokes heard the trash talked about police on truckers CB Radio*
The Cops grin was huge.
Any one can claim what they want about police, without them we would not leave home.
Show me a job, any job, that has not got both good and bad in it.

Are we now on the road from bad to worse ? Anyone king hitting another unprovoked should get a mandatory sentence of ten years & if there is an injury then add another fife years & if the injury is permanent or fatal then the sentence must be life.
Whilst in jail the culprit has to work to pay for the victim's costs.

o sung wu, "It is quite true however, prior to 1996, a legitimate reason need not be furnished to police, in order to own a rifle or shotgun"

It bears saying that the only robust and effective control is in the licensing of the individual.

Howard introduced a heap of bureaucratic red tape and busywork for police that does nothing to treat risk. He was good at selling that to the public and his publicity campaign won him an election. That was what it was about, whipping boys and spin to win.

Can anyone inform me specifically what 'benefits' accrued from sooling the police onto respectable citizens with licences? Now every respectable law-abiding licensed person is on the police computer as a 'person of interest'. The firearms branches and trained officers in local stations are occupied with monitoring the same law-abiding citizens, and conducting random inspections in their homes. The firearms legitimately sourced, bought and owned by respectable citizens are on a hugely expensive registry that is never correct and has never solved a crime (because criminals don't register their guns, silly!).

That is one heck of a lot of abuse of the rights of citizens who are known to be law-abiding and of good character, otherwise they wouldn't have a licence.

Worse, it led to higher risks. Because police are preoccupied with looking over the shoulders of ordinary respectable citizens, and because the particulars and addresses of lawfully licensed owners and what they own are on screens in police cars and in stations, with NO other security but the general requirement of police and civilians employed to do the right thing. A tap or two of a key and the personal details of thousands of respectable citizens are available to criminal gangs. Because not every person working in the law enforcement is 100% trustworthy.

All a damned waste of resources too, because it is the licence that is the only effective and robust control. The rest is all wasteful, expensive window dressing for the mug gun control hoplophobes and the feckless talk show jocks and current affairs hacks.

G'day there ONTHEBEACH...

You're quite correct my friend. Politicians from both parties whenever in power, mandate some edict or other, and it's left to us and other public servants, to carry out their directives.

As you well know with F/A's, it's far easier to regulate and control those ordinary, law abiding citizens who always comply with the law, whatever it is, and whether or not they agree with that law or not ?

There are laws we all have to live with, and because it's in our nature to obey those laws, we simply do ? Legislation post Port Arthur did little to keep F/A's out of the hands of crooks. What it did do, it made a lot of law compliant citizens angry, because of the additional imposts placed on the legitimate shooter.

Many believe, post Port Arthur, because of the political imperative, immediately after the tragedy, many of the additional F/A laws were substantially ill-conceived purely because the relevant authorities wanted to have some measure of control, in place. And also because of the demands made by the anti-gun lobby, who were 'beating down' the government's doors demanding immediate action ? Consequently, we have a bit of a 'dog's breakfast' concerning F/A regulation and control.

I must also apologise to the Moderators, for being so far off Topic ! Though, with any unlawful violent act, come questions concerning measures of self protection which, for better or worse, always brings us back to F/A's. I'm sorry.

o sung wo GY will soon let us know if he thinks we are too far of subject, we have tended to wander in every thread I ever saw here.
Reading some press for free online is still possible.
I do so every morning first Goggle news, then three locals all Fairfax and all have main press story's.
In my waddle through these today two separate story's about king hit exist.
Seems clear public out rage is at its peak, signed a petition to call on NSW leader to address this just minutes ago.
The thread and its thoughts expressed make it a very good one for that I thank you.

Hi there BELLY...

Thank you for your boundless support my friend, I really appreciate it. Members like HASBEEN, INDIVIDUAL, ONTHEBEACH, in fact many other decent people who regularly contribute topical and challenging views on this forum. Often inserting a contrary and perverse opinion to what others have said. And for this reason these people are the salt of the earth.

Of course we have our venerable fair ladies, FOXY, SUSEONLINE and POIROT, to name a few. All of whom try to keep us enthusiastic males in check. Without their gentle guidance I wonder if we'd be as well behaved, without their benevolent vigilance and more circumspect analysis of much of what we boisterous guys claim ?

There are so many other people who constantly add their thoughts and position on many of the various topics that are regularly aired on this marvellous Forum of ours (sorry Graham's?), often laced with a dash of humour too !

Anyway, I think we've just about exhausted this 'dreary' topic once and for all ? Thank you everyone who kindly contributed to this worrying subject, I really appreciated you efforts.

I hope everyone has a very HEALTHY, SAFE and GRATIFYING 2014 !

Best wishes...Sung Wu.

In John Howard's case it was allegedly his wife Janet who was behind his gun control initiative. She was the master political tactician and lent Howard the spine to carry out the huge bluff. Howard himself was the master of wedge politics and expert in sloganeering.

Both sides of politics were confronted with the politician's nightmare:

- that there is no effective treatment against the odd determined assailant encouraged by sensationalist media reporting of gun crimes and desiring instant and lasting notoriety for himself; and

- the simple fact that the assailant was not mad, or a terrorist, he was known to authorities and had minimum IQ, which can easily result in rages against anything that frustrates, and would never frustrate someone with average IQ; and

- the usual facilities that cared for and occupied both mental patients and those with minimal IQ had been sold off by the LNP and by Labor. This assailant could have been occupied in a sheltered workshop where he could have been sheltered against the exasperations of ordinary life.

To that I could add that most offenders who are difficult for police to handle and threaten themselves and others with weapons, more often knives, are suffering mental problems. There is nowhere for their relatives or police to take them. The only options are a cell (very short term and awkward) or admission to a hospital psychiatric unit (few beds, can't be held and are released, hopefully to take medication, maybe). Persons suffering mental problems are often shot by police (police being required to defend themselves).

Howard's gun control was a political remedy for a political problem, largely that there was no solution except to admit bad policy on both sides for selling off the mental health facilities. So he found a convenient whipping boy instead 'gun control' and introduced the window dressing of heaps of irritating bureaucratic paper chase for police and law-abiding licensed owners.

Nothing Howard did could prevent another assailant. It is the callous media sensationalising rather than reporting mass killings, to increase their audiences, that encourage the offenders.

yep in the West the Christian Judea ethic has been replace by the me me me secular humanist manifesto. Feminism, socialism and the fruits have won the day (for the moment). Fatherless kids who have never been disciplined run amuck and rarely receive penalties anywhere near fitting the crime. We have managed however to push male school teachers out and feminise the system to the extent where the average male is disengaged. We have managed to stop calling wrong wrong and right right so as not to show the stupidity of moral relativism (a dogma of secular humanism). We have allowed the porn industry to saturate our society and are dumb enough to think it has no effects (another dogma of humanism). Yes the West is and has crumbled but thankfully it has been foretold for anyone with half an ear to hear. All these isms will crumble.

Just to add the obvious, it is also attention seeking and a quest for notoriety that encourages nasty ferals to 'king hit' innocent targets.

Even if the media chooses to shame the offenders instead, for example by report 'king hits' as 'gutless/cowardly hits' instead, they risk the opposite effect, viral publicity. The offenders are seeking publicity after all and any is better than none.

Do what the Qld premier is doing with criminal bikie gang members, put them in pink and in gaol. That has been done overseas and it does work.

Most important, the media must stop sensationalising crime and criminals to cynically increase their audience. Disgusting how media hacks and 'current affairs' shows prey upon the public and create problems for others to solve, while pretending they are just reporting and have the public's good at heart.

Hi there (again) ONTHEBEACH...

You're summation of all the political machinations and manoeuvring is absolutely spot on ! Your appreciation of the critical situation post Port Arthur is very accurate. Everyone wanted to heavily regulate all F/A's, in order to prevent the likes of Martin Bryant from ever again obtaining a gun ! And in most people's mind, despite everyone's best efforts, all the strengthened laws that were introduced, failed miserably. We now have another burgeoning cottage industry, controlled by, none other than the much feared, OMC gangs, regularly importing all manner of small arms into OZ !

Thank you ONTHEBEACH.

Evening to you, o sung wu.

Technology will soon overtake illegal importation. 3D printing is already at the point of being able to reproduce items made from all types of metals. A metallic, semi auto pistol has already been demonstrated, forget the plastic one the media and police tried to push off as dangerous to the user. Both are here now and getting better and cheaper! What will they do then, ban printers, electronics, servo drives and computers?

None of this is science fiction anymore and you don't need a PHD in physics or electronics engineering to do it either. All plans can be freely downloaded on the internet to create the tools, to create the weapons and the materials are easily obtainable from stuff left on the side of the road! Or if you have the money, simply buy a printer and print off as many guns as you like.

Sooner than later those that fear law abiding citizens with weapons will be faced with a plethora of ways to maim and kill people at a distance, what will they scream for then, a ban on people? Oh wait...

---

< Do what the Qld premier is doing with criminal bikie gang members, put them in pink and in gaol. >

Sorry, OTB. Campbell Newman’s anti-association laws are bad news and should not be condoned IMHO!
The Fabians are going to love those laws when they get back in and they will, and they will use them, you can bet your bike on that one!

o sung wo threads are only warn out when they not longer bring posts my friend.

I note Raw Mustard,s reference to *Fabians* luxuriating in Qld gun laws.
And high light the truth, the Qld Government is quite the opposite and its laws are supported by many more than a majority, Australia weary,s at OMSG violence/crime
Too am I getting my thoughts mixed up?
Is the gun debate here about not further flooding the streets with guns?
Or in some minds is every one owning a gun the required out come of too many, but not near most king hit lets call it gutless persons.
I remain convinced vigilantism is not an answer but a threat

Port Arthur is a bad example, it stinks to the high heavens, there was no trial, no coroner's inquest and a thirty year embargo has been placed on evidence relating to the shootings.
I don't accept the conspiracy theories of a government planned psychological operation but the intellectually disabled Bryant is a perfectly fall guy for incompetent 1950's style administration which was struggling to cope with the rapid pace of change occurring about them.
Are the gun advocates happy for young Sudanese and Lebanese men from the Western suburbs to have access to military weapons? Where would we be now if Howard had done nothing? You can't have "multiculturalism" and retain the freedoms associated with the homogenous society some of us grew up in, Howard had to choose between the two.
The gun ban is the result of the Howard team's fixed and outdated view of what Australian society was and their inability to move beyond the farcical Liberal ideology of "equality".
In 2013 premiers and mayors are faced with the same sort of choices, they have to decide whether the population that we have today is capable of responsibly consuming alchohol under the current licensing conditions.
One factor worth considering is the notion that because men now live far longer lives they are not maturing into adults until they reach their thirties and not reaching real manhood until 40, should the legal age for drinking be raised to 25 in response? Do 18 year olds who have the mentality of 13 year olds really need to be out socialising at all hours? I'm the father of a teenager and it's shocking to me how immature her peers and friends are, at 15 they are not capable of, say, going to a concert or having a birthday party without full adult supervision, they're like 12 year olds who still have to be babysat.

The only robust, effective control is a firearms licence. Any Sudanese or whatever who has exhibited antisocial behaviour will not get one. For anyone with a firearms licence the penalties for even minor indiscretions are very severe and the firearms are likely confiscated along with the licence. In fact the penalties for a licensed person are much higher than for the feral offender already known to police, who bought his 'gangsta' gun from the OMG bikies.

Belly worries about firearms 'flooding the streets'. That is the sort of B.S. spread by hoplophobe gun control activists who are few in number,and directed by foreign political interests apparently. However their sensationalist factoids may find a willing ear and headline on a slow news day, especially at the ABC. Go figure that one, and the ABC forgets to give a right of reply.

The simple, incontrovertible fact is that it doesn't matter how many firearms (or type) owned by the law-abiding licensed firearms owners (LAFOs). Because LAFOs are not the criminals and wrongdoers. They are the good guys. Anyhow, they are not going to risk their valuable firearms and license.

As for those who can't get a licence and get their gangsta firearms from the black market, there will always be as many firearms and of the type they desire. That is what criminals and wrongdoers do, break the law. Most illegal firearms find a use in the drug trade.

It is the recreational drug consumption of the well off, the educated middle class, that delivers the windfall profits to drug gangs, keeping them in business and as a consequence, result in the so-called flood of guns on the street and in the wrong hands.

Fewer drugs -> fewer illegal guns -> less gun crime.

How many of those lefty gun control 'experts' regularly do a line, take a tab or smoke weed? Would they ever join the dots between their illegal drugs, illegal guns on the street and gun crime? Not likely. Because those types always believe that the world spins around them and others have to make concessions for them.

Sandy Hook was real OUG, it was only the aftermath which was faked, or stage managed, again, you don't need elaborate theories to explain a fairly straightforward public relations exercise.
Robbie Parker, Gene Rosen, the Phelps/Greenbergs and all the others were actors but it's not unusual in situations where an actual atrocity needs to be rapidly exploited for propaganda purposes. Example: Fluent in German and Polish,film director Billy Wilder was staged the Buchenwald liberation newsreels (1945), the (completely fake)Buchenwald narrative was then taken to absurd extremes by Nina Rosenblum and William Miles with their "Liberators" project(1993)which wove the fake Dachau liberation stories into the same plot and the lies were further elaborated by Steven Spielberg in "The Last Days (1998).
Buchenwald was a real prison camp, people really died there but the post 1945 narrative version of "Buchenwald" is completely fictional, do you understand what I'm saying?

What you have to understand is that this is how the media works,and how the fiction and fact are woven together to support a particular narrative, all these "conspiracies" are just like films which carry the introduction "inspired by real events", all that's changed is that the technology required to make films and TV is more widely available and easily understood by laymen in 2013 than it was in 1945.
"Sandy Hook"in inverted commas, is inspired by the actions of Adam Lanza, it's a tale woven out of real events and (poorly written as it turns out) fiction, it's not a huge "cover up" involving the whole town it's a very small,low tech and rushed "mockumentary" production, that's why it fooled nobody and was so quickly spotted by the viewing public.

Hi there JAY OF MELBOURNE and RAWMUSTARD...

Thank you both for your contributions herein. However, I reckon most of us (myself, probably the worst offender), have lost contact with the original theme, consequently we've seemingly wandered aimlessly into this nebulous discussion about F/A's ? Further most debates centring on guns, often generate some serious, even emotional dialogue, which generally returns us all to where we originally started.

With respect, this particular topic dealt with a transgressor seriously injuring a victim with a so called 'king hit'. But somehow, the subject of guns had inexplicably 'transmogrified' the debate ? It should be noted, that it would be highly unlikely, even if the victim did possess a gun, he still wouldn't be able to prevent the attack in any case. Nor could the seriousness of the injury, be diminished either ? As the victim would neither have the opportunity, nor the presence, to introduce a gun into the equation ?

Hi (again) JAY of MELBOURNE...

I realise we're well off Topic here. But in your two most recent threads, you make certain claims that I find quite puzzling ? Obviously, I'm not in a position to make any considered comment, because much of what you allege is untested, therefore can only be described as theory or conjecture ? You give the appearance of someone who's in possession of some interesting data, but to my untrained eye, it's questionable. Particularly matters you detail, relating to Port Arthur and questions, relating to the practical jurisprudence, surrounding Martin Bryant's final (legal) disposition.

You also make certain assertions apropos the recent events at Sandy Hook ? Therefore may I ask, what is the source of your information, of both events ? Or is it simply a theory promulgated by those who claim some confidential knowledge ?

I regard honor and honesty as some thing worth trying to reach.
For that reason only I address a post from a man who clearly has no relationship with either.
BS? is that so? to hold a view that is seemingly held by most?
I wish such a man could speak to me like that to my face, age is not always a barrier.
Today and yesterday a point was made we should rename the King Hit.
Thought well worth thinking about,as I grew up the then rare King hitter was king of the bar, no one took him on knowing a day would come that saw him square up.
Why not name it truly *Gutless*
I am aware I get combative in responding to such as the above, but truth deserves my best support.
An inner City seeing every hand holding a gun would bring death every night of the week to us, fools who king hit would take the gutless back shot, police would die just walking the streets and let no man or fool tell you law and order is best served by hand guns in every hand.
OTB your increasing serves at me must one day stop.
You do not appear to have grounds for it and constantly bring trouble on your self with other posters.
In your case mate a clear demonstration can be seen.
*Only the letter T separates a Witt from a TWIT*

It was I that brought guns into the discussion, because it is my firm belief that if more of the populous were permitted to conceal carry, a lot of these crimes could be avoided without the pain and suffering currently being perpetrated on innocent, law abiding citizens both by criminals and that other band of criminals, .gov.

Thanks for the thread and your thoughts, o sung wu. Hopefully those that read these forums without contributing take something useful away with them.

G'day there BELLY...

The 'gun' debate. I've not known a topic that's so divisive or emotional then that of guns ! As you know I've had to carry one of these damn things for over 32 years, and I can tell you they can be a real nuisance. And over that thirty two odd years, I've had to pull the thing less than a dozen times, at most. And I've never fired a shot in anger, either.

And I couldn't agree with you more, with your remarks and comments about vigilantism. I would NOT like to see that type of 'outlaw' behaviour inculcate throughout the streets and public places of our cities and towns. Imagine if you will, seeing hundreds of people carrying strapped across their chests, H&K MP5's and MP10's as they have at most British Airports ? Now that would be a very disconcerting sight I reckon ?

O Sung,
Nope, no secrets, it's all common knowledge, Bryant was never tried over Port Arthur, he denied the charges at first but a confession was eventually produced, a guilty plea was entered and he was convicted immediately and imprisoned, there was no trial, no inquest and the records have been sealed. Seems a bit odd eh?
Sandy Hook, for whatever reason after the killings certain people presented as having a connection to the case appeared in staged "interviews" where they are reading from a script and literally acting a part, at one press conference one of the TV crew members filmed the unedited version of the footage as it played on a monitor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV20DtXBuQs

Watch this next clip, it explains a lot about how these strange situations occur, it's pretty sad really:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j30sWIOMIak
For what it's worth I believe Mr Rosenblat when he says acted with good intentions and there are mountains of evidence of other people doing exactly the same thing either willingly or under duress to "play their part" in building a narrative to serve the memory of the victims....or to assist political activists who SAY that they will build a fitting testimonial to lost loved ones
I apologise for further steering the thread in another direction but when we're dealing with accounts of atrocities or crimes it pays to be very skeptical, so when we here reports of violence out of control on our streets we also need to apply the same critical techniques in forming our opinions. Remember Claire Werbeloff? Those types of people are definitely out there.
Just because you have witnesses speaking on camera doesn't mean events unfolded as they said,

Just to get back on topic; as most of the 'king hit merchants' in the current discussion have been drunk, or at least influenced by alcohol, then increased penalties won't be a deterant, if such people were sober then the existing law would deter them.

Alcohol is the cause, so remove the cause.

The unintended consequences of drug war dishonesty.

6th March 2011
In the 80s and 90s there was a concerted effort by those in power to demonise and stigmatise marijuana and its users.

By making pot use uncool the authorities thought they could reduce the use of what was then the most popular recreational drug. With help from the mass media and hollywood they succeeded in turning pot into a drug perceived by the young as being only used by losers and outcasts. Bill and Ted, Waynes world, rap music etc all worked to paint pot and its users as useless, idiotic and lame. Government programs and enforcement, drug dogs, harsh penalties and straight up dishonest propaganda all helped as well.

So what did we get for all this effort?

The rise of pills and chemicals and a massive increase in drinking culture. Or should that be drunken culture. Youths hyped up on stimulants, drinking copiously for hours and then running amok, causing chaos and seriously hurting themselves and others.

Violent drunken assaults are common most weekends and fights have changed from a rare occurrence that did little real damage (due to the incompetence of normal drunks) to being regular, amphetamine fuelled melees involving glassings, weapons and resulting in deaths and severe injuries.

(continued)

(continued)

The alcohol industry (legal drug dealers) with their drive for 24 hour drinking and pushing of harder (more profitable) spirits must shoulder their share of the blame. Along with the cowardly politicians bribed by the alcohol industry they all have unwittingly contributed to the war zone that is the average entertainment precinct on a Friday or Saturday night.

It is obvious that the prohibition strategy is a failure. Squeeze one part of the drug scene (at huge expense) and it just expands somewhere else. It is like squeezing a balloon. People want to change their mood with drugs and as long as it doesnt degenerate into abuse (as is the case with the vast majority of people who use drugs sensibly) then it should be a personal matter and none of the states business.

Driving people from one of the most harmless drugs, marijuana, onto more dangerous and antisocial drugs has got to be one of the dumbest things we could do as a society. But we did it, and now we pay the price.

What do you prefer?
Stoners in a basement giggling or
hyped up drunks out to smash your face in?

http://www.wikkkard.net/articles/mine/DrugWarGoneWrong.html

Good evening to you, RAWMUSTARD & JAY of MELBOURNE...

Thank you both for your explanations advanced on matters arising out of discussions promoted herein. I'm unable to furnish any comments myself on issues you've cited, as I've no personal material in which to compare. Thank you anyway.

Hi there IS MISE...

A very plausible explanation for sure. However to alcohol, one should also add the notoriously precarious, methamphetamine ICE. Combining the two, often produces a very powerful and dubious outcome. And that, really compounds the entire problem ! Thank you, IS MISE.

Just to pick up a point of apparent misunderstanding of the gun laws affecting law-abiding licensed firearms owners (LAFOs).

LAFOs are not permitted to be in possession of their firearm when under the influence of alcohol or drug. The case would not arise that they would be carrying a firearm under the circumstances being worried about by Belly and others.

Of course criminals and other likely offenders cannot get a firearms licence and illegally hold guns. It is also part of their modus operandi and a fact proved by police statistics that their guns are often illegal in design (eg modified) and were never obtained from any legal source, or stolen from LAFOs. It is interesting that the few cases of previously legally held firearms that were used for crimes were stolen from police themselves and from other government sourves such as rangers.

Belly,

You get cited sometimes because you have no knowledge of firearms regulations and repeat abysmally silly muckraking about LAFOs. At minimum, you should have the decency to exclude the thousands of very respectable LAFOs, rather than insinuate criminal or irresponsible action on their part. Those are obvious slurs. But you keep it up, as do a couple of other very long term posters on this site and you would have been corrected many times before.

Fair minded people would realise that LAFOs have demonstrated in rigorous police criminal, character and other background checks that they meet the high standards to be allowed a firearms licence.

Yet critics such as yourself who foolishly besmirch their character, deal in speculative gossip, and very obviously know zilch about firearms regulations, can proffer no evidence whatever to provide they are similarly good citizens of good character with good intent.

Under the circumstances it is a fair and reasonable to ask why you persist in doing that?

http://www.infowars.com/90-of-shooting-rampages-could-be-stopped-by-quick-thinking-civilians-expert/ http://www.infowars.com/nsa-calls-americans-zombies/ http://www.infowars.com/white-house-announces-new-executive-actions-on-background-checks-for-guns/ http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/RKBA/rkba.php
Jan 04 11:47
MSNBC Mocks NRA, Suggests It's Better To Confront A School Shooter Unarmed http://xrepublic.tv/node/6883 http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/the-economic-and-social-crisis-in-spain-they-want-to-make-poverty-normal/ http://rinf.com/alt-news/editorials/how-government-allows-dangerous-additives-like-msg-to-stay-in-our-food/ http://intellihub.com/2014/01/04/oral-cholera-vaccine-loaded-with-gmos-to-be-tested-on-babies-worldwide/ http://www.bobtuskin.com/2014/01/04/detroit-police-chief-says-armed-law-abiding-americans-translates-into-crime-reduction/

In my above post the second last para (in answer to Belly) should read,

"Yet critics such as yourself who foolishly besmirch their character, deal in speculative gossip and very obviously know zilch about firearms regulations, can proffer no evidence whatever that they are similarly good citizens of good character with good intent."

Time to leave the thread.
Not with my tail between my legs but for the sake of this site.
I have a total understanding of this country,s gun laws.
At first saw Howard,s policy as a threat.
But know to of Americas horrible history of little or no gun control.
So as threads I posted long ago and others, have said we do not need to change.
IF I could lock one poster up in a gun closet I would continue this worthy subject.
As he has neither the class or best wishes for this site in mind it must be me who leaves.
But to even my worst opponents LOOK at the unfounded child like charges about me he places here.
He claims he knows my mind.
OTB is a sand paper like taunter not just of me but many.
I love this site have supported it and intend to for ever , not posts but cash.
What however is to come if more balanced posters leave because of this troll.
For that is what he is no other description describes his intent to do verbal combat with any who hold views other than his

In today's Sun Herald there is an interesting article on our topic; in it a senior NSW policeman defends the status quo, as tougher laws, such as the ones in Newcastle, would in his opinion hurt Sydney's international image.

Wow!!

Belly,

Taking your bat and ball and leaving the pitch without even the mildest apology to the many thousands of respectable LAFOs you offend, damn and defame entirely without evidence when you deliberately and callously conflate LAFOs with criminal offenders.

You leave because you would prefer to bury your head in the sand bucket rather than confront the possibility that you might be wrong.

It bears repeating that I would much prefer to put my trust in the word and behaviour of those many thousands of proven respectable law-abiding Aussie LAFOs you disrespect than hysterical gun control zealots who are likely getting their support, funding and marching orders from a secretive foreign currency dealer who conspired to send the Bank of England broke.

Is Mise,

I would very much like to know what 'tougher gun laws' do. The crimes committed with weapons, such as threatening, harming and killing others are already illegal and stiff penalties are there for judges to decide.

Exactly how do 'tougher gun laws' affect offenders when they have already chosen to break laws, eg laws against burglary or trafficking drugs, and tools such as weapons, cars, mobile phones and so on are a secondary decision. Ban everything?

Does it take a brick Council dunny to fall on some people to make them realise the obvious truth before them, that the $$windfalls from drug trafficking are easily able to corrupt to the very top of society? 'Tougher gun laws' are the talk of lazy and sometimes corrupt politicians.

Why is it that effective cooperation between jurisdictions is seemingly impossible to maintain except for particular exercises and after, the skills are usually cast to the winds?

There are well-proven ways to deal with corruption and criminal gangs. When police say they don't get support, they are usually looking upwards. They are very game to admit the obvious, which could shorten their career if they are more specific.

I don't know about that ONTHEBEACH, I think you're being a bit hard on BELLY, old man ? I really don't think BELLY is in anyway disparaging or defaming anyone who chooses to pursue sporting shooting as a pastime. I don't like golf, but many of my friends and work colleagues play the game, can I say fanatically and zealously ?

I think he's merely expressing an opinion that supports many of those people who are opposed to F/A's being in the community. Unless there's a very good and legitimate reason for them to have one. As I said in an earlier thread, mention guns to anyone, and it can get quite emotive and aggressive, even between good friends, even family members.

"Unless there's a very good and legitimate reason for them to have one"

What about you be required to provide a legitimate reason for approvals to conduct your recreational pursuits? Where does it start and end? A car and mobile phone are much more valuable to a crim than a noisy gun. What about 'car control' and 'mobile phone control'? What legitimate reasons do you have for possessing either? Are you of good character and without a criminal record, no matter how far back?

Belly regularly conflates criminals and criminal behaviour with the LAFOs. He should be accountable for what he asserts.

As well, shouldn't laws be based on evidence? Thinking need and outcome.

Speaking of which, there is absolutely no evidence, none, zilch, nada of the Howard initiated 'gun control' preventing crime. The reason is obvious: the Howard-inspired regulations are as I said previously redundant bureaucratic busywork that do squat, take police away from collaring criminals and slag respectable LAFOs, who have already been required to prove that they are law-abiding and safe.

The licence is the only robust, effective control. But not that or bans will ever prevent criminals from conducting their business as usual. The state of play ATM is that there are windfall profits to be made from drug trafficking. The gangs use all manner of means to enforce, get paid and stake out territory. Gun crime is a minor part of the widespread serious violence and crime, but it makes for sexy headlines. The easy-out for politicians is 'gun control' - which does SFA to prevent crime. Or hasn't anyone noticed that the Howard-inspired 'gun control' has had no effect on the street?

Why should random posters be able to come on here and slag respectable citizens? In this case LAFOs, without anyone saying, 'Hey hold on there, where is your evidence' and making them accountable?

Hi there ONTHEBEACH...

You'll get no argument from me, when someone argues that tighter gun controls, limits F/A crime on our streets ? We all understand that more stringent gun laws, only serve to further regulate the law abiding citizen, and not crooks. They have their own illicit suppliers, that pay absolutely no heed to the law.

In my opinion, if we were to embrace the New York State model (I think?), where the commission of any crime, reveals the use of a F/A, in any component of that crime, then an additional mandatory ten years custodial sentence, is cumulatively added to the 'head' sentence.

Further, in most US States, where an offender is convicted of an offence, where during the perpetration of that crime, the use of a F/A is proved, then the offender receives a life sentence without any possibility of parole. Often referred too as the 'three strike rule'.
A very harsh penalty to be sure.

'Ye who walk through these portals, abandon all hope' I found this scrawled in the front pages of a battered Gideon's bible, taken from a suicide victim's cell, six wing, Parramatta Gaol, in the mid 1970's.

o sung wu,

I agree. Anyone who uses a weapon in the commission of an offence should receive a stiff penalty. That includes those who are trained in physical combat, eg martial arts.

The Left are soft on criminals for some reason though.

May 2014 be great for us all.
May it bring those who are overly self confident, truth.
May it see those who count enemy's they made as victory's, see the other side to that coin.
Above all near eight years and 5 figure posts may it stop me being seen by fools as a random poster.
May I dare I?
OTB just maybe you will have the manners to know I place no value your childish thoughts/fabrications of others thoughts
Australians seem happy to retain our current gun laws.
To not be like America.
And to consider in the cold light of looking Back see Howard,s law Was doing the right thing.
No joy as a Labor voter but truth beats rants, if Howard had not unleashed work choices on the battlers he drew away from Labor he would still be PM.

This *RANDOM POSTER* is still trying to find sense in that comment.
Are only some free to comment in the land of the lost OTB lives in?

OTB,
Tougher gun laws do have an effect, they make things frustrating for law abiding citizens apart from that they do nothing, certainly nothing positive, unless making crime safer for criminals is a positive.

Firearm registration is a colossal waste of time and money and has never achieved anything.
Australia's venture into Firearms Registration was modeled on that of Canada, the which Canada has now scrapped as it was an abysmal failure and delivered none of its touted promises; it's now time that we followed Canada's lead again.

Registration of firearms came in NSW with the Firearms Act 1920, the Act lasted until around 1932 when the NSW Parliament abolished it and the registration of long arms, mainly because it was a frustrating millstone that achieved nothing.
We then had over 60 years of no registration and the sky didn't fall in.

Firearm Licences are also a waste of time and there is no good reason why individuals should be licenced.

Unless, of course, if the people doing all the drive by and other shootings in Sydney can be brought to heel by cancelling their licences!!

Is Mise,

You are correct. 'Bread and circuses'. Populism. Statism.

Waste of money and police resources. Gets many thousands of respectable, law-abiding citizens off-side. Which is contrary to good policing that depends on gaining the respect and cooperation of the public.

Hysteria is worth some votes and is a good cheap way to control a population.

Perhaps some posters might benefit from reading this < http://www.mediaite.com/online/new-study-demolishes-almost-every-gun-control-myth/ >

WORTH HIGHLIGHTING.
This interesting thread drew many posts.
At first in looking for answers to a crime most find gutless and want to end we put thoughts up.
Length of sentences given and actually served got support,make both firm seemed the required action.
For sure almost every one wanted an end to king hits
SOME HOW the gun debate was opened up here.
And SOMEHOW my call for no freeing up of current laws SAW AN INVENTION SURFACE.
That invention from at least the bellowing undiplomatic and unhappy
OTB and maybe you Is Mise is/was that I at any time called for tougher gun laws!
Show me when!
It is imposable to debate with folk who invent your thoughts then compact that stupidity by insulting you for the words you never said.
It is true, from this thread and others years back I have stood against freeing up hand gun laws.
And a sad fact for my combative Hans Christian Anderson opponents that Australia thinks in numbers too big to ignore we are well served by current gun law.
PS HCA too wrote children's story's.

Belly,

If we are well served by the current gun laws please explain why if I need percussion caps for my muzzle-loading guns I have to produce my Shooters' Licence in the local gun shop but further down the road in three other shops (that are not licenced gun dealers) I can buy percussion caps, by the hundreds, and I don't have to produce the licence.
The three other shops are not breaking the law, their sales of percussion caps are legal.

The same goes for Maynard's Patent Pellet Primers; if the Firearms Dealer sells them to a person who is not licenced then he can be fined and have his licence cancelled, but the three shops down the road can and do sell them without restriction.

After 18 years of the current laws there are still such stupid anomalies.

We are indeed being "served" by the gun laws.

Belly,

You said "....For sure almost every one wanted an end to king hits
SOME HOW the gun debate was opened up here...."

It was opened up because a pistol or other firearm is the only way, in some circumstances, that a person can defend themselves from unlawful attack.
You seem to think that this it is OK that some must be sacrificed for the good of the many.

You haven't yet told us why all the dire predictions about people having arms for self protection didn't happen pre-1996 when licenced concealed carrying of pistols for such protection was allowed.

Isn't it ironic that those that support the right to self defense, deny people the tools with which to do so?

You do agree that people should have the right to defend their gift of life do you not, belly?

How is a person supposed to defend themselves without any form of weapon? In Victoria, woman aren't even allowed a can of pepper spray FFS!

I am finding it imposable to talk to minds that are closed.
I thought better of Is Mise but am not supprised at RMs contributions.
I along with the vast majority of Australians consider more hand guns say more death on the streets.
These filth who king hit are in some cases likely to kill if they have guns.
We see daily shootings now and need them like a hole in the head.
Do not tell me we the over riding majority are wrong and you two right.

I'll type this slow for you, belly, because I know you struggle to read fast.

Do people have a right to self defense?

I t ' s a s i m p l e q u e s t i o n !

C'mon Belly, you imply that if people are allowed to carry pistols for self defence that there will be gun mayhem in the streets, so do tell us why it didn't happen before 1996 when concealed carry was allowed by licence and anyone in NSW could keep a rifle, carbine or shotgun for self protection without registration.

He wont answer you, Is Mise, because that would destroy his argument. He won't answer my question because he would have to face a moral conundrum.

You see, our Mr belly is of the socialist left, aka Fabian creeps. When they are faced with such difficult questions, they attacks that small ounce or moral fibre that still exists in their indoctrinated, co-dependent, minds. They've yet to wipe it out completely from their DNA's, not through lack of trying I might add. He's probably looking through his Labor handbook on how to defend his stance. It's in there I can assure you, he just needs to search for fingers, ears, blah, blah, blah!

RM I question why a contributes o so much hate/abuse/insults/ lies and fabrication is still able to post here.
Yet this is as far as I go with you, not bothering to report you very rarely have done that with any one but your wish to be hot sees you look a sick and sorry failure.
Is Mise sorry
My fault,unlike my view of OTB and RM I thought you to be a bright bloke.
Even seen you support unions.
YES needless but my words clearly say so, SHOUT so, I think hand guns are a danger if we ease the current laws.
Australia thinks as I do.
You blokes are painting your own picture of me as a gun hater.
I am the opposite! a mate is high up in the pig shooting culture writing for its premium mag.
I have owned no less than 25 rifles.
Almost every one sold to responsible shooters one nearly killed its new owners wife.
Is Mise do you get out much? do you see the country side road signs shot full of holes?
Do you ever see what was behind that sign?
How some one could have died?
Have you doubts that if more freely available hand guns do not [in your brave new word] land in safe hands?
RAW MUSTARD I am a combative poster hopefully in retaliation not your king hit style.
I truly think you are as you post, a silly little bloke trying to look tough, you fail bloke you fail.
LAST? I am condemned branded by lies and fabrications for? being an average Aussie holding average views!

Now witness the results of searching through the labor handbook. The questions un answered, obfuscation, spin and Ad hominem.

It would seem typing slowly doesn't help them either.
AND Here's my question again:

Do people have a right to self defense?

I t ' s... a... s i m p l e... q u e s t i o n !

It may well be RM that you are doing the best you can.
Or that you are a kid posing as a man.
You however come across as a complete DILL.
What has my membership of the ALP got to do with this thread/subject?
How can I answer any questions if you change the subject as I start to.
Now in real life I would be the first to help you if you need it, but you come across as a smart A but wait maybe the opposite person.
How is maintaining our current gun laws stopping folk defending them selves?
What if I was confronted by such as you AND YOU HAD THE GUN not me?
Most would clearly see that truth guns now fall in to the wrong hands.
You seem determined to trade your pop gun in on a hand gun!
Now consider, not do not hurl insults at me, control your anger and think.
Have you ever re read your posts?
Ever considered why others complain about you.
Do you think some times the world is mad but you are OK?
Do you let the truth in ever if it is not your view.
Most very much so, Australians will NEVER AGREE WITH YOUR THOUGHTS ON HAND GUNS
Politics has no role here but truth, *despite your efforts has*.

Belly, "What has my membership of the ALP got to do with this thread/subject?"

You really should give a prior keyboard warning before saying hilarious things like that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLsEcljjYYo

Didn't we just have a run in with Arjay about the truthfulness of utube.

I'll just skip the superfluous junk and get right to the point, shall I?

You again refuse to answer my question and resort to filling the post with abuse and nonsense and I'm the dill? Hmmm?

Again refuse to answer my question and instead ask a stupid question, re: "How is maintaining our current gun laws stopping folk defending them selves?" And I'm the dill? Yep, got it!

Take 3!

Do people have a right to self defense?

Maybe that one's too hard for you?
Try this one then.

Does one human being have the right to prevent another human being from protecting their gift of life?

Just an answer to one or the other will do!

T h e y... a r e... s i m p l e... q u e s t i o n s !

Belly,

You can't be serious, "How is maintaining our current gun laws stopping folk defending them selves?"

Firearms Act...NSW.."....self protection is not a genuine reason to own a firearm" (or words to that effect).

Raw Mustard believe it or not I do not enjoy putting you down.
You do a much better job.
Consider taking the medication it may help.
Is Mise, tell me how many times must I say, *I understand and agree with NSW current Gun Laws*.
Including the part you highlight.
Mate it is unfortunate that YOU continue to ignore this.
NSW is currently flooded with Illegal hand guns.
Days do go without a shooting but rarely.
Youth, some just teens kill or injure using those guns,
I am weary of our on going battle, one you re draw the rules of daily.
Is it enough that you hold a view far less than 20% of Australians would agree with.
Can you not see this thread is about cowards punch not your pet concern and that please tell me you under stand! more hand guns equals more death on our streets.

Belly,

Do you really believe that an Australian citizen living in a remote area where there are known to be wild dogs should be prevented from having a firearm for protection or those that live in areas where there are crocodiles or mean and dangerous scrub bulls or, as is the case in parts of the Northern Territory, marauding camels?

Do you really believe that an Australian citizen walking down the street in suburban Sydney should not be allowed to carry a stick as protection against a savage dog?

Surely not!

Belly,

How does it matter what guns or number of guns are held by LAFOs, ie respectable, law-abiding citizens who have proved, some for ownership periods exceeding forty years that they abhor violence and would never break the law?

On the other hand, offenders do not need a weapon, they will use anything available including their care hands to intimidate and murder. One piece of pipe, one can of fuel, one knife, or one gun in the hands of a criminal is one too many. Also, they don't need much ammunition do they?

If your emotion and politics are set aside and you use your God-given noggin instead, how can you possibly confuse these offenders with LAFOs? Which do do manage to do over and over again. See here,

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/zoltan-slemnik-appeals-for-help-to-find-killer-of-hells-angels-brother-tyrone-20140110-30lds.html

It should be obvious to you that the inanimate objects you believe cause crime are already illegally obtained, illegally possessed and of course, illegally used. Most people though would come to the realisation that there are already laws against violence, theft, drug trafficking and other crimes being committed by criminals, and it is the offender himself who chooses to commit the crime.

The Left though and especially the 'Progressives' that calls the shots in Labor, and the feckless Greens, are soft on offenders while warping the rights of ordinary law-abiding citizens. That is why the Left is so concerned about the rights of OMG gang members, but they see no problem in their ill-conceived 'gun control' concentrating on respectable citizens who are not breaking laws and never would either.

In your world Belly you see no problem in police constantly monitoring LAFOs, having LAFOs on police computers as 'persons of interest' and conducting random compulsory inspections in their homes. Migrants would recall a parallel with the totalitarian governments they fled from.

There is no surprise that you and other 'Progressives' would do that. After all, you are signed up for State control aren't you? Taking rights away from the individual, but not criminals who must have rights(!) is par for the course for Internalional Socialists aka Marxists.

Again you refuse to answer my question and resort to abuse and nonsense. Usually a sign of ignorance and intimidation.

You wont answer my questions because you recognise the moral implications of doing so. This topic is not a political issue, it's not a legal issue, and it surely is not a consensus issue either. It's a human rights issue. But because you still have a little morality left in you, a sense of decency, you're torn. Your indoctrination and follower nature prevents you from voicing your true thoughts for fear of letting down your side!

No human being has the right to prevent another human being from protecting their gift of life or that of their family, under any circumstances whatsoever, period!

From birth humans are given the instinct to survive at any cost, we fight wars to protect our borders, we jail people (well we used to) we consider a threat to our safety. A mother, a father will kill ten people if they threaten their offspring. This has been happening since time immemorial. The most ardent anti gun types have admitted they would do the same on this very forum. To criminalise humans exercising their natural instincts, their human rights is morally and ethically wrong, it's stupid and leads to wars. Our diggers died to protect us from people that would take away our human rights, our instincts to live free and protect those which we cherish.

You can suppress these traits for a while under the wrong belief it makes people safer which it doesn't, history proves that without a doubt! But as time progresses those that would take advantage of others less capable of protecting themselves will grow, this is where we are now.

Many of us recognise this and are pleading with others to open their eyes but these others instead think that criminalising the vulnerable and empowering the criminals is the right way to go. What is their agenda? Because it's certainly not the empowerment of honest, good people that wish to live in a free and peaceful society!

cont'd

If you think I'm full of sh!t, you only need to look at what's happening around the globe at this very instant in time. People are rising up against tyranny and corruption all over the planet, and when it get's out of hand what do we do? We send them arms to fight off their aggressors. How about we let them keep their arms and prevent their aggressors from ever getting a foot hold in the first place? Would this save more lives? The American founding fathers thought so.

And it might surprise you, belly? But I don't own any guns! I did grow up around them though and I owned many from a very early age. I'm very capable with all types of them, including bows and arrows. I'm not arguing this because "I personally" want more of them. I see what disarming a population does to innocent, good people over time and it's not pretty! I will not give up my liberty and instincts for a little security!

Again in the news, this time with China is the foreign billionaire currency dealer who is rumoured to have links with that highly secretive and contentious Oz gun control site. The site that refuses to give details of it membership, sources of funds, sponsorship, political and other links and on top of that, does not accept applications for membership.

It is a small world.

http://business.financialpost.com/2014/01/09/did-george-soros-just-predict-a-china-crash/

Oddly, the ABC in particular has given a podium to that gun control site, said to be the work of one or two activists. However the ABC apparently makes no attempt to inform its audience just who is behind the site or 'organisation', its membership, or any other details. A podium without anyone being offered a right of reply for balance too.

It would be interesting for the public to know what links if any that 'gun control' site has with NSW and federal Greens too.

I don't trust that man, OTB. The guy's a living enigma, so much written about his past, for and against. People would do well to stay away from anything he's involved in. When I see the types that endorse him, I know I'm right!

In some of today's papers they are kicking around the idea that higher taxes on alcoholic drinks should be used as a control method, an easy cop out that sees the innocent punished along with the potentially guilty.
Higher taxes on a legal product can and do inhibit the purchase of such a product but is such a path ethical?

m``````````````
ismise..IS IT FAIR THAT All smokers pay tax..same same
one in four only*..can 'get cancer'//3..OUT OF 4 simply cant get any*..cancer..ditto the cowards..one in 100 WILL Attack..someone..AT SOME TIME[And govt simply dont want them to havE GUNS[SO THEY USE KNIVEs..or rabbit punches..[or a Glass [look up glassings..its huge

the honest will still COP THE CURE JUST LIKE THE SMOKERS
[AND ALL THIS FUSS IS ABOUT 4 YEARS..EXTRA LIVING[YET IT raises billions[trillioMNS GLOBALY[MUCH LIKE THE WAR ON THE PLANT DEEMED A DRUG/BY LAWYER TRICK[Criminalizes 120,000 plus per year[mainly HARMLESS KIDS CAUGHT BY sniffer dogs doing illegal search.

ANYHOW FIRST THEY CAME FOR THE DOPERS [KIds]..then your guns..next your booze..your kids anD ITS TOO LATE TO COMPLAIn then[they will simply take your house like THEY DID MINE

ALL because police police policy..not real CRIME LORDS STEALING YOUR SAVINGS YOUR SUPER YOUR UTILITIES YOUR WAGE/YOUR GUNS..YOUR PEACE OF MIND..RABBIT PUNCHES..THAT KILL MAKE THE NEWS[YOU GOT A HIGHER CHANCE OF DYING BY SUIcide[20 vets per day.plUS MORE KIDS]..BUT ONE PUNCH..CAN KILL[OR RATHER THEir head busting open..by hitting the pavement]..CAN KILL..BUT THE COWARDS [rabbit]..PUNCH..Is the way of cowards..

jUST LIKE POLICING MORALS/or health laws as if real crime
police arnt interested in the real crime..just police revenue raising policy[BAH]..to fill private prison quotas.

One under god, why not annoy the dreadful 'revenue raisers' and give up smoking?
Then you won't need to pay those taxes...

Is mise, although I like my wine or gin and tonic, I agree with raising alcohol taxes.
Maybe it will lead to people drinking less because of the higher cost?
That can only be a good thing, surely?

Suse,

What will you say when they impose a tax on fat/butter/sugar etc., etc.?

Taxation as a social engineering tool is immoral.

If a product is proved to be harmful then curtail its use or ban it.

Is Mise, with alcohol being proven to be ok in small quantities for occasional use, it does not need to be banned.

No such assurance is given for smoking though...so I would support a total ban on smoking now.
Thankfully, far fewer people are smoking now, so the time to ban its sale is very close.

Suseonline, " I would support a total ban on smoking now"

Just leaving to one side your authoritarianism and disregard for others' rights, have you considered the unintended negative consequences of that?

For example, cutting out the legal supply of tobacco would deliver a superb business opportunity to the criminal gangs who are already trafficking tobacco, tobacco+MJ+other chemical mixes, and other drugs. It would also deny the government taxes, and the criminals gangs would take that as extra profits.

As the forum's most hysterical hoplophobe you would also be promoting the inevitable illegal gun possession and violence as drug gangs - including the OMGs that the Left and Greens are rather keen on protecting(?!)- extend their enforcement and drug territories to include the thousands of new illegal users.

I could go on to discuss some of the other serious downsides, such as drug gangs and OMGs having more contact with kids, but others might take that up.

Typically there is no reply from Suseonline when her prejudices are challenged with facts. Suseonline's proposed tobacco ban was just another of her frivolous drive bys, to sledge and annoy any smokers present.

I am not a smoker. However I can understand why some smoke where they have nags, busybodies and bullies in their lives to contend with. Australia now seems to have an abundance of people who spend their lives minding their neighbours' backyards for them. Interfering in citizens' lives is a preoccupation of the Statist 'Progressives', aka Fabian Socialists, aka International Socialists.

It is a bloody disgrace that the previous 'Progressive' Labor/Greens government BOASTED of enacting 500 new laws. That was their claimed 'production' and contribution to Australia! How the hell did everyone manage before? What was going on that suddenly Australian citizens required the State to enact 500 damned laws to control them? That is one hell of a lot of restrictions and bans, some of which were solely intended to restrict freedom of speech.

Meanwhile in Canberra-

http://au.news.yahoo.com/nsw/a/20823337/canberra-man-narrowly-avoids-jail-for-coward-punch-attack/

Suzionline just sharing a thought.
Bigotry comes in many forms and you I know, understand that.
The forum we both joined is still one that approves of freedom of speech, freedom of thought and too other freedoms we would be better without
see you in another thread
HIGHLIGHTED because it matters!
I think the comment about tobacco is a slander too far is it OK?, not in my view.
I while ever I post here continue to rebut stuff like that from that poster, in that post a brand of insulting behavior that harms us all and questions my need to be here.
Holding a view shared by many is NEVER reason to be treated like that.