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



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The truth about Australia's gun control experiment > Comments

The truth about Australia's gun control experiment : Comments

By David Leyonhjelm, published 16/6/2014

While deaths due to shooting have decreased, there is no credible evidence linking this to Australia's adoption of gun control laws.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 18
  7. 19
  8. 20
  9. All
What's your alternative policy? How much do you estimate that to cost?
Posted by Sam L, Monday, 16 June 2014 9:30:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
1.Do sporting shooters need military weapons to be able to enjoy their sport?
2. Are shooting deaths and injuries in the US also decreasing in number? If not, why not?
Posted by d'Helm, Monday, 16 June 2014 9:34:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David, whatever the Aussie gun laws are now are good enough for me.

We don't have mad wanna-be 'soldiers' shooting large numbers of people at one sitting most weeks, as they do in the US.

If you don't like the gun laws here, the US sounds like the shooting happy country of choice for you.
Posted by Suseonline, Monday, 16 June 2014 10:27:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
d'Helm,

In my considered opinion, and from my experience, sporting shooters do NOT require military style weapons to be able to participate effectively in their choice of recreation/sport/conservation/humane-vermin-control.

As a shooter myself, almost exclusively in target shooting (putting holes in paper in a safe and responsible manner), I have no problem with the restrictions placed on the possession of certain firearms. In fact I heartily support the restrictions on semi-autos - which may of course still be possessed in certain circumstances by duly-licenced professional shooters for feral animal control.

Our firearms licencing system works quite well, with the major benefit, I believe, of due scrutiny of all applicants, which hopefully reduces the risk of nut-jobs acquiring a licence and a firearm.
The lack of universal scrutiny in the U.S. is a major flaw in their system.

Our restrictions, including the registration of firearms, and requirements for their secure storage, hopefully acts to limit the availability of firearms to criminal elements, and to minimize the chances for non-licenced persons to gain access to a firearm, possibly for ill-intent, and also obviating chances of an 'accident', and these are worthwhile objectives.

Our system may have a significant price-tag, but the resultants are well worth the effort, and the cost.

David is baying at the moon, for the debate has been had, and only some relatively minor 'tweaking' of the regulations may be all that remains by way of improvement or simplification - at least as far as NSW regulations are concerned.

The decline in firearms 'incidents' may or may not be directly related to the restrictions introduced, but any significant relaxation of our regulations would be ill-advised indeed, IMHO.

We don't need another Port Arthur, or Hoddle Street, or any 'Columbines'. The price of security is well spent.
(Mind you, I would be in favour of more stringent provisions regarding evidence of psychological fitness. But that is only my view.)
Posted by Saltpetre, Monday, 16 June 2014 11:05:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David L, there are some important parts you have not covered in your article.

One, is that the witchhunt against a million innocent people who owned guns distracted from the real causes of shooting massacres - mental illness - and media reports teaching and creating incentives to commit massacres.

Two, Australia's smug monoculture of self-righteousness makes us incompetent to work with data, as opposed to feelings. The vicious treatment of those who disagree with the witch-hunting and brainwashing whether over guns, global warming or the other marker issues of the chattering class, is a disgrace to our country.
Posted by ChrisPer, Monday, 16 June 2014 11:11:33 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would very much like to see any evidence that Australia's mass murderer Martin Bryant was mentally ill. What is true is that Bryant has low IQ, marginal IQ.

I have never understood why the feckless media and the public must believe that mass killers are 'mentally ill' when they obviously do not believe that of other criminal offenders, be they white collar or violent thugs who murder. It is stereotyping and as such is often wrong.

The simple fact is that there are people who do monstrous things. They plan their dreadful deeds coldly and rationally and carry them through the same. Where mass killers are concerned it is highly likely that the ones who seek personal revenge on the world and celebrity are encouraged to kill large groups of people. That is the 'Gold' method of ensuring media attention.

A gun, bomb or fire are the present methods that ensure sensationalist treatment by the media. Planes guarantee immediate, sustained and wide exposure as well. Offenders are also guaranteed continued celebrity from the media, maybe forever, as current affairs shows and editors 'refresh' their celebrity on slow news days. We all recognise 'those' stories. For example, the disgusting Bryant must relish the continued attention from his gaol cell. Other possible offenders are watching that.

An obvious treatment of risk is to ensure that the media do not sensationalise, but report ethically and with principle. That is impossible where the media chase an audience. What is also impossible is that the media will ever admit any contributing fault.

This is a good article. John Howard, who went against the advice of his ministers and advisers was most likely advised by 'Her Indoors', Janette Howard, the real power and force behind the 'Little Deputy', John Howard. It was $2 billion of taxpayers money wasted, but it did win Howard an election and it did take attention away from the knowledge authorities had of Bryant, and the impossibility of stopping the lone wolf, regardless of what method s/he chooses. Bryant also used fire.

Thank you to the author of the article.
Posted by onthebeach, Monday, 16 June 2014 11:45:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
oh dear reality is just so inconvenient at times isn't.
Pre-change
Mass shootings 1 every couple of years.
Post-change
Mass shootings zero.
Hard to walk past that.
As a life long shooter and farmer there is no need to have semi or fully automatic firearms anyway.
I would ask anybody reading this to watch the daily shows treatment of the subject including an interview with John Howard.
Posted by Cobber the hound, Monday, 16 June 2014 12:58:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
America is awash with guns, with the kill-crazy gun freaks demanding even more freedom for gunnies to arm up. 10,000 Americans are shot dead by other Americans per annum. Adjusted for population size, that would equate to 700 Australians shot dead by other Australians every year. Say the annual death toll of fourteen Port Arthurs in the lethal propagandists’ sights.

The nut cases in America are so scared of the prospect of legal restraint that they have been emptying the shelves of the gun sellers. Their constant refrain is “Everyone tool up and everyone will be safer”. Yet the Americans know better than to let anyone enter a federal facility (e.g. the White House) or a passenger aircraft carrying a gun! We know better still – since Howard’s assault on the gun crazies you can’t even walk gun-hung into a service station. We’ll do best not to listen to the deceptively titled “Liberal Democrats”.
Posted by EmperorJulian, Monday, 16 June 2014 1:15:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
in japan/ONE DAY GOVT CAME FOR THE SAMURI SWORDS
MANY COLLECTABLE SWORDS GOT SCRAPPED BY IGNORANTS

fleeced of their inheritance/many swords..melted into cheap toys
all for industrialisation..in the name of serving the war machine its scraps

anyhow they took my guns by armed force/8 thugs
stole 8000..dollars of collectable arms..and jailed me 3 months for the privledge..8000 dollars then=24 thousand today..the truth about guns sales is govt looted our assets/investments..and instALED A LICENCE AGREEMENT..TO ALLOW GOVT TO CONTROL PEOPLE..and assets strip the peoples wealth..to those looting our common wealth into a taX FREE FUND IN SOME TAx haven

dont remind me govt declared war on me just to loot my investments
8000 spending money into 3 months jail..yep only in australia..the land of ozzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..home on the beurocratic freelunch*

tax deductions to investers
HOMELESS SERFDOM TO THE PEO.. DISARMED THEM..
AND NUMBED DOWN THIER BRAINS WITH..FLEURIDE/and other sickness

next they outlaw..art..then take ya god
do as your told..ask why public servants need wear guns..[intImIDATION.THAT THEY 0BEY UNLAWFULL ORDER*..[i want my arms back/and my freedoms..]..the rum corpse has declared a real war on me personally.
Posted by one under god, Monday, 16 June 2014 1:26:12 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well done Senator, again. If you were in Victoria you would get my vote. No one has mentioned the 30 plus people killed in Melbourne's drug war? That's because criminals are entitled to carry guns as evidenced by the fact that they do not get heavy sentences when caught with a firearm.
I was another who gave in my guns rather than face the sleazy public servants with their no work, high pay, and we do not pay tax mentality.
I wish you well Senator get drugs and guns legalised. With mandatory sentences for criminals with guns and hospitalisation of people with mental problems. Keep these poor and afflicted people and the rest of us safe.
Posted by JBowyer, Monday, 16 June 2014 1:57:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Plenty of ignorance displayed in such a short article. Congratulations David.

“The inescapable conclusion is that something other than gun laws is likely to be driving the merciful absence of mass shooting events in both countries.”

The inescapable conclusion David is that you are clearly ignorant about numbers. Australia has more than 5 times the population of New Zealand. So it is impossible to conclude anything about the rates being zero in both countries.

“The ongoing costs of running the firearms registration systems are unknown but have been estimated at around $28 million per year, or $75,000 per day. That's more than what the average Australian earns in a year.”

If you want an effective regulatory system, you need to pay for it. If you pay peanuts, you will get a monkey of a system. If you are worried about cost, the argument should be less about the policy as whether the regulation is efficient.

“Some research finds little evidence for any change, others show displacement from firearms to other methods (such as hanging).”

People who want commit suicide, or murder someone else, will always find a way to achieve that goal. What firearms do is make that goal easier to achieve, making it less likely that second thoughts can come into play. Therefore, having fewer guns kicking about in the population must be a good thing.

In the US, most firearm offences are committed with firearms that have been stolen from legal owners. Arming the population to make the country safer has not worked. In fact all it has done is created a criminal arms race and made society less safe.
Posted by Agronomist, Monday, 16 June 2014 2:43:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Cobber the hound, Monday, 16 June 2014 12:58:09 PM

So Howard's gun laws prevent multiple homicide, you say? You would believe that the crowing of the rooster causes the sun to rise.

As well, licensed persons have never been able to won fully automatic firearms. The reloading rifle or 'semi-automatic' is useful to ensure the follow-up shot to ensure humane culling. Regrettably in times of natural calamity such as drought, farmers have used semi-automatic .22 to cull sheep for example.

Are you sure you are a farmer and a licensed firearms owner? Because your ignorance is not to be expected of either.

Lone wolf killers, serial killers, multiple killers are not created by the availability of the tools and methods they employ. For instance, arson has been responsible for multiple deaths too, an example being the Whisky-au-Go-Go multiple homicides in Brisbane, Queensland. What about Evan Pederick and the Hilton Hotel bombing that was designed to kill many, but only managed to kill an unfortunate waste disposal employee?

You and some others should take a course in reading and comprehension. Get a glass of cold water and sit down to read and comprehend what the subject OLO article is saying rather than reacting emotionally and going off half-cocked.
Posted by onthebeach, Monday, 16 June 2014 2:59:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Suseonline, Monday, 16 June 2014 10:27:08 AM, "..whatever the Aussie gun laws are now are good enough for me"

How can you expect to be taken seriously when you freely admit you have no knowledge of the firearms laws, you are obviously unwilling to even educate yourself on them and you flaunt your own ignorant opinions?

While I am a staunch supporter of compulsory voting, you are one of the truly ignorant exceptions who should be excused from ever casting a ballot. To think that I have always argued against those who say that people should pass some simple civics and comprehension test before voting.
Posted by onthebeach, Monday, 16 June 2014 3:16:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh dear, firearm assisted suicide, is just as easy with a single shot 22, as it is with a thousand rounds a minute, mini gun!
One single bullet is usually plenty, and I suspect, very difficult, with a bullet in the brain, to chamber and fire an additional round, even with the assistance of a SLR!
Many of the gun crimes committed in any country, are carried out with, never ever registered, illegal firearms.
I suspect, a Bryant, in say a packed theatre, could do as much or more damage, beheading fleeing patrons, with an expertly wielded razor sharp Sumuri sword, as he did in Port Arthur, with an SLR, fired at virtual point blank range?
The cowering restaurant patrons, even gave him time to reload, when perhaps a pot of boiling hot coffee, flung in his face, would have effectively disarmed him!?
The problem wasn't the choice of weapon, just the hands holding it! Ditto the Washington sniper, using a bolt action rifle, to also mass murder!
As someone who once operated as a professional shooter, culling feral animals, I now along with almost every other former professional shooter, refuse to ply this old trade!
Why? because I can no longer guarantee a humane kill.
I mean, something as small as a leaf waving in the breeze, can alter the trajectory, and instead of a clean kill, a badly wounded animal takes off, before one can chamber another round manually; meaning, a badly wounded animal, can suffer for many hours, before it can be finally, humanely dispatched!
Why we could have simply limited Automatic weapons, to say five round magazines.
Now there's something we could have the states follow, along with a restricted persons register, including people like Bryant, whose IQ, borders on the moronic!
This one measure, would have saved many lives.
As long as weapons can be manufactured in home sheds, someone will sell/buy illegal firearms.
And as long as someone can manufacture them, others will buy them, just as they do, in considerably much more law abiding, won't say bum for sixpence, Japan!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 16 June 2014 4:05:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As always, whenever this topic is raised, someone judging others on their, what I would do in your shoes, patently flawed personal standards, starts accusing legal gun owners, of enjoying killing for killings sake!
That is, without a shadow of a doubt, a monstrous and emotive lie!
Yes, there are some immature kids, a tiny minority, who should never ever be allowed to own or use firearms, without proper prerequisite professional training.
Ditto untrained ultra permissive parents, the place where errant behavior with guns usually starts, as learned by exampled behavior!?
And law abiding owners are usually more incensed than almost anybody, at the sight of shot up signs, or worse, gut shot animals, left to die most cruelly, by patently spoiled kids, who are doted on by ultra permissive parents, who then go on to offend, by mixing guns and alcohol, and also quite often, high powered motor vehicles!
These are also those often also very immature irresponsible parents that also buy underage kids, their equally illegal alcohol!?
All given to them, when they are little more than a pair of walking gonads!
Firearms are merely useful tools in the right hands, and only dangerous to others, in the wrong ones!
I mean, this sort of behavior starts with air rifles, and the killing of harmless birds/ magpies, which is also, followed by other forms of character altering, animal cruelty, which is all too often, a precursor to other forms of even worse cruelty, culminating in things like baby and or elder bashing.
As I said, it is not the firearm that is legally held, just the hands holding it.
Ditto dogs breed for hunting!
And if there's a case for restricting legal firearms, then there's an absolutely compelling case for removing illegal ones.
However, good luck with that, fact and evidence avoiding anti gun lobbyists, one and all!
Rhrosty
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 16 June 2014 4:41:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
onthebeach your just going to have to rake my word for it just I as I take your word your not a 12 year old living at home still. I've shot sheep and cattle, abotiors gun is more effective and cheaper.

Now back to the point why are you missing the point. We have not had any mass killings since the guns laws were changed. Is that a true statement or not.
The next point is what if not the guns laws changes has caused this to happen?

We are not talking about 30 deaths over 5 years we are talking about 4 or more deaths in one hit

Also "onthebeach" the semi and automatic thing was inserted into my reply becasue that is were the author is headed. if you can have a semi why not an auto, hell why not a chain fed 50 cal machine gun as some state in the US allow
Posted by Cobber the hound, Monday, 16 June 2014 4:52:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So someone wants to know what people need in the way of guns that they can't get under the present laws?

1) The best form of .22 rifle for hunting rabbits when there are a lot of them, (we live in AUSTRALIA) is the semiautomatic .22. This is a small sporting rifle, very popular and freely available even in almost every country of the world.

Of the 800,000 licensed shooters in Australia, perhaps 50,000 of them are primary producers and can go to stupid lengths of bureaucracy to get one. The rest abolutely are banned from owning them, despite the fatuous claims that 'they are not banned'.

2) Similarly, the best way to manage the recoil of a shotgun for hunting or vermin shooting is to buy a semiauto shotgun like the Remington 1100. Same story. They are 100% sporting arms, nothing military about them at all. Only those same 50,000 can get them at huge cost, and not at the same time as a semiauto .22. Similarly for pump actions.

3) A number of people in this country are at immediate risk of murder, having offended bikies or drug dealers, or carrying cash, or being the target of a mentally ill (or divorced) person's obsession. One very helpful tool for reducing that risk is a firearm in hand. That is absolutely impossible; it is defined out of the law. Names can easily be named of people known at risk by the Police, who were killed despite police knowledge of their danger.

These obstacles to using normal firearms for normal jobs are created out of a dishonest public debate.

The safety almost all of us live in is dishonestly defined as applying to every Australian, so personal protection is removed from genuine reasons in law.

Activists and academics dishonestly defined the problem as 'automatic and semi-automatic firearms', thus mixing the vast majority of good rabbit rifles and sporting shotguns with a tiny few military weapons and binning them all in a wave of self-righteousness
Posted by ChrisPer, Monday, 16 June 2014 4:56:34 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David, so by your logic, let's loosen the gun laws, allow people to have semi-automatic and self loading weapons, and then we'll know for sure whether the Australian gun laws are working or make no difference.

I'm sorry but the point you are trying to make is completely fatuous.
Posted by PGS, Monday, 16 June 2014 4:57:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Two points for Agronomist. First Australia has five times the population of New Zealand which reinforces the case of our gun laws making no difference to mass shootings.
Second I suggest you Google "Myki" if you want the current pinnacle of public service waste and stupidity. Mate we are paying for Rhodes Scholars and we are getting Rhesus monkeys.
I take it very personally that I had my guns dragged off me and yet the legal sleazes and public servants are delighted that criminals keep their "Tools of trade".
You dolts complaining about "Shooters" but ignoring the criminals with guns getting bail and small sentences who actually shoot people! It beggars belief.
Posted by JBowyer, Monday, 16 June 2014 5:23:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JBowyer,

Making firearms more freely available could do nothing to reduce the capacity for criminals, or potential criminals, to acquire a firearm; quite the reverse I would contend.
Sorry about your having to hand in your cherished firearms. Many very fine collectables and heritage firearms were unfortunately caught up in the buy-back. I personally think greater discretion could have been applied to enable competent persons to retain some such firearms as a 'collector'. (Strange also how the cash was very good for some junk, but well short for some prestige arms.)

Sorry ChrisPer, but we don't need a semi-auto .22 or shotgun to cull rabbits. If there is a real problem you would have to destroy their warrens. Otherwise, a pump-action .22 can be just as effective - in the right hands - and it's still legal without hassles.

Sorry Rhrosty, needing a quick second shot is not the right way to achieve a humane despatch. The right way is to be sure of your ability and of your shot, or let it go. One-shot kill is the only acceptable way, and it needs to be a genuine well-placed instantly-killing shot.
Too many people are also under-gunned, and think it's a bit of fun to shoot a large animal with a pea-shooter. Such miscreants don't deserve to have a licence.

If I had my way, every firearm owner would have to attend a target shooting club where they would have to demonstrate good proficiency with any style of firearm they wish to possess before being able to gain the required permit to buy it; and it would only be by such means that a person could qualify for 'recreational hunting/vermin-control or rural occupation, or Primary Producer' as 'Genuine Reasons' on their licence.
Just having 50,000 acres should not qualify someone for a licence without further proficiency, and attitude, evaluation, IMHO. It's not as though this would need to be terribly arduous, and some may well discover the enjoyment, and the challenges, involved in precision shooting.

Animals have rights too.
Posted by Saltpetre, Monday, 16 June 2014 7:15:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JBowyer, it looks like your math is faulty. The argument made in the article was that once the rate of mass killings was the same in both countries. The fact that Australia’s population is five times higher means that there should be 5-times as many mass killings in Australia as New Zealand. But, since 1996, the number of mass killings has been exactly the same in both countries (albeit 0). This little factoid that David Leyonhjelm trotted out did not support his case that the gun buyback had no impact on mass killings in Australia when compared with New Zealand.

Did I not suggest that if there was a problem with how much a regulatory scheme cost to run, the argument should be about the efficiency of the scheme not the policy? Oh yes, I see I did. Well there you go, who would have thought that?

If you think an armed populace is a better outcome, perhaps you should look over at the US to see how that is working out, or maybe Iraq. More firearms in the community means more opportunity for criminals to get hold of them and also tends to create an arms race.
Posted by Agronomist, Monday, 16 June 2014 7:30:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh God this old chestnut again? Really? Oh well.

Dear David,

To paraphrase yourself I'm directly charging you with the following;

'To satisfy your conceit, you manipulate statistics to suit yourself and pretend that 'the science is unsettled'. This is an outright lie.'

In the 10 year before Howard's gun laws there were 8 shootings in Australia involving more than two people being killed by a single assailant with a gun;

1987 Joseph Schwab – Killed with a gun 5 human beings before being shot dead by police

1987 Julian Knight – Slaughtered with guns 5 people and wounded another 19

1987 Frank Vitkovic – Shot and killed 8 and wounded a further 5

1990 Paul Evers – Murdered with a gun 5 people

1991 Wade Frankum – Took the lives with a gun of 7 people and wounded 6 others

1992 Malcolm Baker – Blew away 6 people

1996 Martin Bryant – Massacred with guns 35 innocent people and wounded a further 21 people

In the 18 years since the count is ZERO.

That is settled science.

BTW New Zealand actually had brought in quite restrictive gun laws pre-dating Australia's in response to their own mass shooting in 1990 though they haven't been quite as successful at curbing them as we have. Here is some comments from an American attempting to get a gun licence there a couple of years back;

Quote;

The process for obtaining a basic firearms license is long, complicated and expensive. In other words, designed to weed out a broad portion of the population that the law deems unsuitable to possess a firearm.

After submitting your application to the NZ Police, you are signed up for a mandatory firearm safety course put on by the New Zealand Mountain Safety Council. The course runs about three hours.

Experienced instructors offer advice covering the handling, operation and storage of firearms. It ends with a written exam. If you fail the exam, you must go back to the police station to register for the next available class, with no exceptions.

Cont..
Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 17 June 2014 1:10:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cont..

If you pass, your results are reported back to the NZ Police Arms Officer in preparation for the next step, the interview.
About a week following the safety class, the Arms Officer rang us to set up a personal interview. He came to our house in the evening with a huge booklet filled with questions. He interviewed each of us alone; me, my partner, and our personal reference (which must be a non-relative who has known you for at least two years and can attest to your ‘good character’).

The interview was intense and personal. I observed the Arms Officer taking notice of the general state of our home as well as our demeanor. He confirmed we had a lockable cabinet for firearm storage, and separate lockable storage for ammunition. He asked pointed questions about alcohol and drug consumption, our domestic situation and our general mental health.

He also asked what we intended to use firearms for. Hint: personal or home protection is not an accepted rationale and would likely get you rejected – acceptable reasons are limited to hunting and/or target shooting.

Several weeks later, our New Zealand Firearms Licenses arrived in the mail.

http://www.seattleglobalist.com/2012/08/06/getting-strapped-in-new-zealand-shooting/5740

End quote.

Your article sir is a disgrace and promotes the supposed rights of a fringe group (those wanting access to automatic weaponry) over the safety and well being of the rest of us. You should be ashamed.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 17 June 2014 1:11:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If we remove guns from the public then also remove them from Govt. Govt has the best track record for mass shootings and genocide. Starlin 40 million, Hitler 6 million, Mao 60 million. They also start wars as in Afghanistan,Iraq ,Somalia, Pakistan, Korea,Vietnam etc.

Perhaps we need a separate people's militia that is not controlled by the Govt and individuals won't need so many guns as in the USA. Obama is close to bringing in Martial Law. They have over 800 empty FEMA Camps there supposedly for illegal immigrants but the tally is way over 15 million and not one is in these camps. You can never trust your Govt especially when it is corporate controlled.

If chaos breaks out in Aust, the criminals will have all the guns and we will not have enough police to protect the people. Don't think that it cannot happen.
Posted by Arjay, Tuesday, 17 June 2014 6:53:26 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist "If you want an effective regulatory system, you need to pay for it. If you pay peanuts, you will get a monkey of a system. If you are worried about cost, the argument should be less about the policy as whether the regulation is efficient". Exactly what I tried to explain to your closed mind. Public service equals a total balls up at an astronomic price, they never have an efficient system just one that is too expensive. Its in their DNA, overman, over complicate and overcharge.
Also your math is wrong, zero is just that, nothing so you we are in the same boat except that you are happy with gangsters with guns but not me with both of us poorer?
Posted by JBowyer, Tuesday, 17 June 2014 8:05:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay, a militia not under the control of the government. What an absolutely excellent idea. I hear that Iraq has one of those kicking about it at the moment that it might be willing to give up. Perhaps we should invite it over here?

JBowyer, I see you are starting to get the hang of this maths lark. So prior to 1996, mass shootings happened at 5 times the frequency in Australia as New Zealand. Since 1996 they are happening at the same frequency in Australia as New Zealand. How then is this any evidence that gun laws in Australia have had no impact on the frequency of mass shootings in Australia?
Posted by Agronomist, Tuesday, 17 June 2014 9:04:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So Agronomist, do you subscribe to the dishonest use of definitions to pretend we have had zero mass shootings?

Monash University, 2002. Fits profile of school shootings, five innocents shot but only two killed outright before a bystander intervened and prevented further killing.

That means mass shootings are zero only by trick of definition, but there has been an incident that fit the profile.

Four dead has been the definition of a mass shooting, but activist researchers repeatedly claim three stabbed to death and one or two shot as a mass shooting.

Activists and media created Australia's mass shootings. There were none until the sensational media treatments, fostered by anti-gun activists; there were none after the media made a triumphal few years smashing and abusing the innocent, and conveying the image that guns had been confiscated and mass shootings were not feasible anymore.

One exception, committed with pistols after Lee Rhiannon and her media partners persistently claimed it was easy to get pistols legally and after weeks of crazed sensationalism about the Washington snipers. No more after another media blitz about stopping it.

Activists and activist media created our massacres.
Posted by ChrisPer, Tuesday, 17 June 2014 9:21:20 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
crisP-QUOTE..,,<<<Activists
and activist media created our massacres.>>

oh DEAR
[CITATION-NEEDED*]

we are sepperating THE WAY/FROM THE MEANS\
thE CAUSE OF MOST OF THESE MASS SHOOTINGS IS PERCIBED DRUG USERS ON A DOPWNER..[apparently..we GOT HAPPY Pills-now..they make you happy/even if YOUR BODY has reason/to be sad.

point being they perscibe/these trouBLED SOULS..PILLS
RATHER THAT FIX THE root of their ills..[THE SIDE-AffECT/of the happy pills...see if you tAKING THE PIlls ya body stops making the happy juICE.

ya get down..and actually get takeN OVER BY DEMONS
AS THE HAPPY PILLS LOWER YOUR INHIBITIONS..ITS THE NUT BEHIND THE WHEEL/that drives the car/truck/boat SWORD..OR gun.

it takes a certain sort to kill/OTHER..
these type know what they want/they will use an ax a car/ANYTHING..THAT DOES THE JOB..lest we forget the blue pill id loved by the sadoIST IC SIC RAP[ISTS

WE SHOULD BUY BACK THE PILLS
CURRENTLY OUR PILL SUBSIDY IS BUYING THE MEDICINE PERscribed by jet setting TOURISTS JUST USING OUR SYSATEMs..stop them..no take johan guns

guns with no BREACH BLOCK..[CAUSE THey nevER GET STRORED IN THE GUN*]
nor the ammo..]..so that no dOUDT REDUCED THE value/yet not the 2 months jail time.

IM ANGRY..GET ME SOME HAPPY PILLS.
i demo IS WORTH 1000 WORDS..ITS THe pills
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 17 June 2014 2:52:11 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There haven't been so called mass shootings, since Port Arthur, because getting a gun licence was simply made much harder, and nigh on impossible for someone with criminal record, or not enough intellectual agility, to master the complexities of mistake free form filling!
And not because shooters were simplistically limited to Bolt actions.
Even so, and in spite of the new restrictions, drive by shootings that threaten all and sundry, are becoming more numerous.
It a truism, outlaw guns and the only hands holding guns, will be outlaws.
My proficiency with a firearm, included cutting the strings of swinging bottles, from around a hundred yards, with a pea rifle and open sights!
So there's nothing wrong with my skill.
And I like many of the other posters, am the recipient of very professional, military firearms training!
Even so, when hunting in heavily wooded country, the favorite habitat of feral deer, something as tiny as a leaf, twig or blade of grass, blowing in the wind, can affect the trajectory, of a round, even the biggest 50 cal.
A true professional would've known that, as opposed to a know it all, lecturing braggart.
I preferred a 22/250, for numerous reasons, the first being, when a round came to ground, around 600 yards out, there was still enough forward high velocity, to ensure complete disintegration of the round, rather than a ricochet, that could continue on to hurt or damage an unintended target.
The stalk being the only part of feral elimination, that held any pleasure whatsoever, for me!
That said, I was also quite partial to roast rabbit, roast feral pig, much leaner than farmed animals; and, once you've tasted buttered grilled lean venison back stakes, you'll never want beef again!
Feral deer have a habit of preferentially snacking on very young tree shoots, and can spell the death knell of native forests, unless controlled. All the compelling reason I ever needed!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Tuesday, 17 June 2014 3:47:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ChrisPer, if the definition of a mass killing is 4 or more dead, then a killing of two people by definition is not a mass killing. I would have thought that was quite clear.

As for your assertion that activists and the media are responsible for mass shootings, that is palpable nonsense. Matthew Bryant’s rampage was not caused by the media or anti-gun activists. The Hoddle Street Massacre was not caused by the media or anti-gun activists. I could go on, but perhaps should let you have a turn.

Provide the evidence that one mass-shooting in Australia was caused by anti-gun activists.
Posted by Agronomist, Tuesday, 17 June 2014 5:35:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whether Bryant chose his method from media reports of other killings is not the point. No-one knows because he was never put on trial, more is the pity. However it is known that copy cats do exist and media reports encourage them. Copy cat suicides following a sensationalised report of suicide give an example.

What is relevant is whether the white elephant gun registry and the mountains of bureaucratic paperwork for Police weapons branches that were created as a result of John Howard's gun control 'initiative' could prevent criminals similar to Bryant from offending.

These cowardly killers were not deterred by the available laws and punishments at the time and it is fair to surmise that they would not have any regard for doubled or tripled laws. How many times is it necessary to say you must not kill?

Further, since the Howard inspired laws are aimed at and complied with by honest, respectable citizens of certified good character who can be relied upon to be very, very unlikely to ever offend, the laws should be see for what they are, political window dressing. After all, exactly what is there in those laws that could prevent a mongrel like Bryant from offending? The answer is absolutely bloody nothing.

To claim that the 'Howard' laws prevent multiple killings is ridiculous. No-one and nothing can stop a lone wolf, but the vigilance of people near to the offender. He is not prevented from fulfilling his awful mission by limits on the availability of tools. He is not concerned about breaking laws. He can obtain tools illegally or legally and easily, eg for arson. There are many options that could create mayhem and allow for a concealed escape. A gun practically guarantees detection (possibly before the event as well) and capture.
contd..
Posted by onthebeach, Tuesday, 17 June 2014 7:17:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
contd..

Howard set in train an expensive, ineffectual bureaucratic mess that takes good police away from detecting and collaring offenders. It is stupidly pointless having weapons branch police constantly looking over the shoulders of known, certified, legally licensed owners and conducting random inspections in their homes. What better outcome for offenders than police being forced behind desks with heaps of paperwork on ordinary law-abiding citizens? The police computers jam-packed with the personal details of the respectable, law-abiding citizens that Howard caused to be classed as 'persons of interest'. ie likely criminals.

Imagine, all of those ordinary respectable citizens, farmers and Olympians with legally-obtained firearms licences are red-flagged on the police computer in the patrol car when they are pulled over for a random breath test. What is the next stage in ratbag gun control, will these citizens be thrown to the ground and intimately searched US-style while a loaded gun is pointed at them?

Lets not do the gun control thing and conflate ordinary law-abiding citizens and their lawfully approved and lawfully used firearms, with ferals and criminals who are involved with all manner of illegal activities including illegal weapons, again of all descriptions. Instead lets talk about illegal firearms and the law-breaking offenders who put them to bad purposes. Better still, lets release trained police from monitoring law-abiding citizens and let them do what they want to do, detect and arrest the wrongdoers.
Posted by onthebeach, Tuesday, 17 June 2014 7:37:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
d'Helm,

In you initial post you had said, "Do sporting shooters need military weapons to be able to enjoy their sport?"

Well, no.. they do not need military weapons to enjoy their sport. However, the same argument could be made asking if they really need real guns to enjoy their sport. This question frames the argument in such a way that you have limitless justification, as you are basing restrictions off of a subjective need for enjoyment. This is a slippery slope.

For that reason, I think this is the wrong question to be asking. I would first define my terms.

What is a military weapon?
Does it share similar capacities to it's civilian counterpart?
What are the technical differences between what is considered military, military styled, and a traditionally accepted firearms?
Posted by Sifaka, Tuesday, 17 June 2014 11:41:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Gun control' is not the right goal. Nor would (say) 'car control' be a fruitful aim to reduce road accidents and wrongful use and theft of motor vehicles.

The focus should be on reducing violence in a general sense. Not something some might want because it would imply and necessitate national coordinated research of violence, which could challenge some of the government bandaids, oops policies, in place. It might also affect the promotion of that legal and often misused drug alcohol too.

All government programs should have integrated effectiveness and efficiency measures and the annual reports on such measures should be made public. Of course that implies that government programs and services ought have proper goals too.

It is heaps easier just to talk up cr@p like 'gun control' than do the hard yards to ascertain what the real goals should be. Governments have relatively short terms, there are career politicians and populism rules, even if that results in wasted billions of taxpayers dollars that could have been better applied elsewhere. The elites who presume to always know what is best for everyone but are never accountable themselves, much prefer superficial, emotive BS too.
Posted by onthebeach, Wednesday, 18 June 2014 12:50:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David, thankyou, thankyou, thankyou. Finally, some sense on this issue.

I too am sick of all those flaky, lefty academics fudging the numbers to support their pinko political beliefs. Three cheers to you, Sir.

Now, for the next step. Can you please write an equally articulate article defending our right to possess automatic weapons.

And please include the right to possess Rocket Propelled Grenade launchers. I have some rather large rabbits on my property that I wish to kill and dispose of in one fell swoop.

With love and the warmest regards,

Your fellow defender of the right to kill things as efficiently as possible.
Posted by Dylan Nickelson, Wednesday, 18 June 2014 7:13:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Evidence for the activists and media causing massacres?
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14495&page=0

This article claims that Lee Rhiannon, Roland Browne and Rebecca Peters of the NCGC, along with partner journalists, taught mass killers how to get guns to perform massacres.

You need to check the sources. Here they are!

Cantor, C. (2001). Civil Massacres Ethological Perspectives. The ASCAP Bulletin Vol 2 No 1 , 29-31.

Cantor, C., Mullen, P., & Alpers, P. (2000). Mass homicide: the civil massacre. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 28:1 , 55-63.

Cialdini, R. (2001). Influence: Science and Practice. Allyn and Bacon.

Cramer, C. (1993). Ethical problems of mass murder coverage in the mass media. Journal of Mass Media Ethics 9 .

Hansen, J. (1995, 10 2). Tassie Guns, featuring Peters, Rebecca; Browne, Roland. . A Current Affair . Australia: NINE Network.

Lovibond, J. (1996, 5 21). Hobart gun death related to TV show. Hobart Mercury , p. 2.

Mullen, P. (1997, 3 4). Copycats to Blame for Massacres Says Expert - Courier Mail. (K. Hannon, Interviewer)

Phillips, D. P. (1980). Airplane accidents, murder and the mass media: Towards a theory of imitation and suggestion. Social Forces 58 , 1001-1024.

Pinker, S. (1999). In How the Mind Works (p. 672). Norton and Company
Posted by ChrisPer, Wednesday, 18 June 2014 8:26:27 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ChrisPer, so the evidence is a polemic written by yourself? A person who’s expertise is editing a Wikipedia page on the subject. I would be impressed, but anyone can edit a page on Wikipedia.

But back to the polemic: the bit about activists is the unsubstantiated claim that gun-control activists partnered with the media in the late 1970s and wonder of wonders created the Milperra Bikie shootout. What a load of drivel.

The rest of the article smacks of a complete failure to understand the difference between correlation and causation.

I searched the academic literature and could found no evidence that linked activists to creating firearm massacres, but I did find these references which are useful for the original article and tend to disprove Leyonhjelm’s central point.

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365.short

“In the 18 years before the gun law reforms, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia, and none in the 10.5 years afterwards. Declines in firearm-related deaths before the law reforms accelerated after the reforms for total firearm deaths (p&#8202;=&#8202;0.04), firearm suicides (p&#8202;=&#8202;0.007) and firearm homicides (p&#8202;=&#8202;0.15), but not for the smallest category of unintentional firearm deaths, which increased.”

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/10/5/280.short

“After initial Victorian reforms, a significant downward trend was seen for numbers of all firearm related deaths between 1988 and 1995 (17.3% in Victoria compared with the rest of Australia, p<0.0001). A further significant decline between 1997 and 2000 followed the later reforms.”
Posted by Agronomist, Wednesday, 18 June 2014 9:57:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why, thanks for that Agronomist! Clearly you have the wits to discuss this stuff and show me flaws in my argument. However, your invective misrepresents what I say. The Milperra massacre is not partly caused by media reporting; it is an extremely significant event that got anti-gun activists and journalists a lot of airtime, and opened media opportunities for anti-gun activists.

Would you care to explain how a persistent pre-existing downward trend in firearm suicides is caused by a buyback of semi-automatic guns which are fully substituted by bolt-action rifles and double barrel shotguns?

Leigh and Neill ignored Australian suicide literature that reported the existing evidence of substitution of hanging for gun suicides, in which the rise in hangings started slightly earlier that the fall in gun suicides. When I drew it to Andrew's attention he was cross they had not cited his paper - until I pointed out that it predated him by several years.

I note that correlation is not causation. So the fall in gun suicides, which does not correlate closely with the changes in gun laws, is not certain to be caused by them either. The likely cause is declining fashionability of and access to guns by younger cohorts, probably through urbanisation, as well as safe storage laws. But do the intellectually dishonest pc journalists and scientists examine that? No, its the Buyback that stopped suicides. they believe what they want to believe, and write papers that are flawed by 'correlation is causation'.
Posted by ChrisPer, Wednesday, 18 June 2014 10:32:33 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ChrisPer, when I asked for evidence that activists were creating firearm massacres, I was expecting, well some data that could be assessed to determine how true that claim of yours was. Instead you linked to an article of yours that contained no evidence supporting the proposition. Effectively, you are stating that the evidence for the position is your own opinion.

As such, it is worthless. Having looked through the academic literature for evidence for the position you have espoused, I have come to the conclusion that you have made it up. It is e sort of argument that I am sure when it is boiled downed to its essentials relies heavily on convoluted explanations and a whopping dose of wanting it to be so. So I don't see how I have misrepresented this argument of yours.

As for the Milperra massacre, it was important, because it made a lot of people sit up and are notice. The overwhelming response that I remember was people concluding they didn't want to live in a society where this sort of thing could happen.

I haven't linked to Leigh and Neill as evidence, so why does what they did matter? In fact the research from New Zealand has established that firearm legislation does not affect the number of suicides very much because of substitution. However, this discussion has been about mass shootings, not suicides, so I am struggling to see how your comments are germane. They look more of a shifting of the goalposts to me.

As for your insistance that I explain how the buy back influenced the decline in firearm deaths prior to the buy back. That is a strawman argument that I have not made. The evidence I linked to in my previous post indicated the existing decline accelerated after the buy back.
Posted by Agronomist, Wednesday, 18 June 2014 12:55:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
akasif/quote..<<..question frames the argument*>>

thats a big POINT/NEVER ASK
IF YOU KNOW THE ANSWER/HURTS OUR CASE...WE MUST RETAIN..REASONABLE DENIABILITY..

FRAMED<<....in such a way..that you have limitless justification,.as you are basing restrictions..??..objectives..<<..off of a subjective..>>

another important point..<<need for enjoyment...This is a slippery slope.>>

how do/they..say..'self affirmation'/dece[topm
externalized concecration..of external perception.

<<...For that reason,..I..would first define my terms.

What is a military weapon?>>

precision/precision/precision.

<<..Does it share similar capacities..to it's civilian counterpart?>>
of course..they are oftem created maintained/by the same people

<<..>>other important question self deletedbut to reply it
fast fire.reliability.the ability to wound..not kill*

[see hunters need that kill/but solgers need to keep the enema busy...[wounding one bloke/shiela..takes out 3 fighters]..and uses up the work-efforts..of up to 20 other/supporting the wars fruits.

hunters want softbullits that tears rip etc
miniTARY AMMO IS POINTY OFTEN PASSING STRAIGHT THROUGH*..with minimul damage..but then 100 pin holes will kill anyone..anyhow MORE PEOPLE DIE BY BEE STING and death by copper.[cops killed more than all terrorst acts/by far.]
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 18 June 2014 1:42:28 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Agronomist, There is no proof that the perpetrator watched that particular show, but Coroner (Mattieson I 1996, see Lovibond J 1996) found that show offered a script in obtaining illegal firearms, and that one person followed that script and went to Tassie to buy a gun, and killed himself. NCGC's words are thus proven to have killed one suicider via media. Mass shootings are in the literature called parasuicide events.

Yes I am the only author who has explicitly blamed the activists and media for the Port Arthur Massacre and suggested that anti-gun activism from 1980 may have caused our series of massacres. The references above include Cramer 1993, who proposed the media as trainer and rewarder of massacre perpetrators based on US evidence. Cialdini in discussing the state of the field on suicide and contagion found that people imitate those seen as similar in various ways, and the guidelines in preventing suicide copycats are designed to make the individual seem like his own circumstances were unique to him. Mullen et al. (including the so-respectable Assoc. Prof. Alpers - is that you btw?) found that the Australian massacres after the first were copycats.

The media frenzy after Port Arthur and through the Buyback is a more likely cause of people no longer committing massacres, than actual shortage of guns to be obtained. There are more guns in Australia now than then, including many that are just as fast to operate as semiautos.

The causative reasoning of the copycat mechanism is strong, but its not proven in the case of Port Arthur that the particular show that killed one at least, caused Bryant to become a mass shooter. Brievik would have published his manifesto, perhaps encouraged by NBC pumping the publicity package prepared by the mass shooter Cho.

Media have been proven to cause copycat suicides in large numbers. The same mechanisms are at work in mass shooters; the same preventatives will help too.
Posted by ChrisPer, Wednesday, 18 June 2014 1:48:32 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The facts are that 10,000 Americans are shot dead by other Americans each year. Adjusted for population, that equates to 700 Australians shot dead by other Australians. What is the figure for Australians? If it's a hell of a lot less than 700, what do we learn from the American experience seemingly envied by Mr Leyonhjelm about which country is protecting its citizens and which one isn't? What I've learned personally is never to be fooled by the deceptive party name "Liberal Democrats", and to appreciate the sometimes irritating enforcement of Nanny state laws blocking kill-crazies from carrying firearms on to an airliner.
Posted by EmperorJulian, Wednesday, 18 June 2014 2:11:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Emperor Julian, remind me about the last time 30 or so kill-crazies got onto airliners. They were licenced Australian shooters, right?

So far we have ZERO truck-bombs detonated by licensed Australian shooters at the A-G's Department offices; ZERO IEDs detonated under hate-bots like the Greens and NCGC; ZERO police tortured and disembowelled after being captured by militants; and zero hate-twisted political correctniks losing hands to mailbombs sent by licenced Australian shooters.

Thats a pretty good track record those gun laws achieved after smashing the reputations of licenced, police-approved, squeaky-clean good people. Certainly time you took you brand of tolerance and insight to the Middle East, you might acheive great things.
Posted by ChrisPer, Wednesday, 18 June 2014 3:00:40 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@EmperorJulian, Wednesday, 18 June 2014 2:11:03 PM

What you are not saying is that the offenders and victims of weapons offences in the US are almost invariably young blacks from poor neighborhoods. They are most often members of gangs and drugs are involved. There is a lot of money in drugs and enforcement of payment, theft and protection of territory are common motivations for violence.

Note that I referred to weapons, because the gun is only one of the tools used to kill and injure. There are reasons why other weapons might be preferred, for example horror and less risk of detection (noise) and tracing, but no one here is much interested in any of that.

Has anyone wondered why political animals and accomplished masters of spin and wedge politics such as Australia's John Howard and US President Barack Obama have never discovered those inconvenient facts? Cynical populism trumps statesmanship.

If it is claimed that the lone wolves who carry out multiple killings can be deterred or stopped through John Howard's bureaucratic BS 'gun control' that only affects and is complied with by the respectable law-abiding citizens who would never offend and are in fact the mainstays of peaceful, civil society, lets have it.

Please show us exactly how John Howard's 'gun control' would have stopped Bryant, or any of the other evil fiends who killed in Australia?

Evil doers are not deterred by laws. It is early detection through public cooperation with a well-trained, well-resourced and well-directed police force that can get these animals.

Diverting the scant resources of weapons branch police and the few police manning local stations onto monitoring and paying flying visits and home inspections of respectable, licensed citizens is bloody stupid, except to gun control nuts (who probably support criminals rights anyhow) and cynical politicians pursuing easy populism through headlines.

Worse, hounding ordinary people who are already certified by police to be respectable citizens (obligatory condition to get a licence!) carries the very real risk of destroying public's respect and cooperation that police rely upon to perform their duties.
Posted by onthebeach, Wednesday, 18 June 2014 3:29:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On the beach asks: "Please show us exactly how John Howard's 'gun control' would have stopped Bryant, or any of the other evil fiends who killed in Australia?"

Answer: He couldn't have done without the gun to do it with. Exact enough?
Posted by EmperorJulian, Wednesday, 18 June 2014 4:09:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
how abt examining the truth of the false-flag psy-op that dis-armed Australia?

http://tinyurl.com/prt-arthur-fcbk ;

oh.....sorry!....would that be against the Forum's *censor-ship* rules?!?
Posted by jimbo!, Wednesday, 18 June 2014 4:36:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi jimbo..most things are permitted[its presumed we are all grown-up]
mods mainly go by complaint..[not spurilous;these soon reveal them selves.

anyhow im presuming..you got info at the link

quote..>>#
Martin Bryant is Innocent -
Michael Charles Dyson shooter at Seascape
June 6
"Martin Bryant.....we demand an inquiry"
(our 'sister' group!!)

http://www.facebook.com/groups/91420938632/

Wikileaks
Non-Profit Organization

#
Martin Bryant is Innocent -
Michael Charles Dyson shooter at Seascape
May 7
Jim & Wolf "barn-storm" Newtown Public School meeting.....
http://www.facebook.com/SandyHookJustice

;it's goin' DOWN, me nigrahz..... &#9787;/..>>[?]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLorM5scm8k ;
if the Sandy Hook HOAX is exposed.......>>

it has been/
http://xrepublic.tv/node/9461
ITS A CHILD DEATH CULT*..
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Death-records-for-796-children-at-Tuam-home-published-in-full.html
http://rinf.com/alt-news/editorials/the-solution-to-everything-slavery-to-the-state/

http://www.blacklistednews.com/South_Dakota_has_Raked_in_%24100_Million_in_Homeland_Security_Grants_Despite_No_Known_Terrorist_Threats%E2%80%A6Ever/35993/0/0/0/Y/M.html

<<.the PAM & Dunblane hoaxes/psy-ops
could be *next cabs off the rank*<<..

interesting..any more detail?
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 18 June 2014 5:08:05 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@EmperorJulian, Wednesday, 18 June 2014 4:09:31 PM

Bryant was unlicensed, he used an illegal gun that had previously been turned into police in a gun amnesty. He committed a string of offences including murder, all of which were illegal at then and now.

I ask again, exactly how could Howard's 'gun control' have stopped Bryant?

It is very clear from media reports of drive-by shootings that Howard's 'gun control' does not prevent OMG bikies from importing the new gangster type guns they like to threaten one another with and don't mind using.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/100-shootings-and-counting-merrylands-tops-driveby-list-20120911-25psc.html

The increased incidence of gun violence by bikies appears to be associated with drugs and the middle eastern involvement, bikies who can't even ride bikes and have criminal backgrounds.

None of that has anything to do with the thousands of respectable, law-abiding Australian citizens who have satisfied all of the conditions and passed character references with flying colours.
Posted by onthebeach, Wednesday, 18 June 2014 7:58:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
there are *many* things to address here....
first off:Bryant is *innocent*....even the "60 Minutes" interview with his mum a few yrs back hinted @ same.....well...@ least AFA it could...i bet if you spoke to the interviewer, Charles Woolley (?), privately...he would confirm that...
secondly: Bryant's guilty plea was *invalid*....being given under duress and being given illegitimately because he was in the care of the Public Trustee @ the time.....
as such: a Coronial Inquest *and* re-trial is required.....
thirdly: Howard's gun-grab and the subsequent NFA were *both* illegal under Common Law, the Bill of Rights 1689 *and* violated the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914.....
all of the abv have been discussed *@ length* on the various Martin Bryant is Innocent FB`s ....
for those interested: i suggest a *careful and prolonged* perusal of the material @ those sites.....
because: ½-baked ad hominems that simply re-hash the main-stream media party-line *propaganda* will, AFAIMC, either be ignored or responded to with contempt!

thanking-y'all !!
Posted by jimbo!, Wednesday, 18 June 2014 8:10:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Saltpetre, you have some valid points... however, you fail to understand some things. There are THREE necessities for a crime to be committed: means, opportunity, and intent. The gun is only one of many "means". If one has the other two in place, a clawhemmer will suffice for the means.. and, in fact, in the USA< more people are murdered annually by the carpenter's claw hammer than by ALL RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS COMBINED. As to limiting to bolt action, no issue... the Texas Tower Shooter of some years back used a bolt action hunting rifle. I have watched a friend using a Remington 700 in .308 place, in well under a minute, ten rounds in a six inch pettern at 25 m, offhand, hand loading each round in turn, not using the magwell. In prone I watched him place ten rounds, again single shot, into four separate targets max error from centre of 5 mm. I also watched this same man place five rounds, from prone, into a three quarter inch )20mm) square at two hundred metres. A bolt gun is no deterrent. From 200 M a man with evil intent could kill a dozen or more before anyone could work out where the shooter was. What is lacking in Australia is the intent. What is the issue here in the USA is intent. And the media, and special interests, foment the anti-gun meme, same as they do in Australia. They desparately want us completely disarmed. Until then they fear we the people.
Posted by Tionico, Thursday, 19 June 2014 4:15:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is a fundamental flaw in the blinkered reasoning of those who support Australia's strict gun laws. That is, if the easy availability of firearms are the primary cause of spiralling rates of criminal behaviour involving firearms (including massacres), then why did they not happen during that period of Australia's history when our firearm laws were very lenient?

Firearms could be purchased (or even rented!) from department stores and suburban male hairdressers. Ammunition could be obtained from country petrol stations and corner stores. Licences did not exist. Boys aged 16 could purchase firearms with their parents permission. School cadets could be seen walking to school or sitting on the bus carrying military rifles, and nobody batted an eyelid.

Pump action shotguns and self loading rifles had been present in Australia since the late 1800's. And people with emotional problems and very low IQ's had been around a lot longer than that. But they had never before got it into their stupid heads to pick up an easily available gun of any sort and start mowing people down in restaurants, schools, or shopping centres.

If something in your society is changing for the worse, then any intelligent person would consider it is pertinent to look at those aspects of society which have changed for the explanation. Not concentrate your ire on a factor which was always present and was never a factor in the past. I submit that Australian society has changed in three different ways.

First, the incidences of massacre behaviour exploded into western consciousness after the social changes experienced during the sixties. One important factor in massacre behaviour was the almost complete removal of censorship from the entertainment media. Prior to the sixties, governments everywhere had simply taken it for granted that movies extolling the virtues of violent criminal behaviour, drug abuse, massacres (in the revenge movie Death Wish III, Charles Bronson shoots dead 35 people, the same as Martin Bryant shot dead at Port Arthur) and revenge, would ultimately reflect in rising rates of violent criminal behaviour, and movies glorifying such behaviour were banned.

To be continued
Posted by LEGO, Thursday, 19 June 2014 6:00:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
continued.

But the rising tide of liberalism in the west saw the removal of most entertainment industry censorship, with only children protected through movie classifications.

Those that claim that the images portrayed and the messages transmitted on the media have no effect on human behaviour, should stop and listen real hard. They will hear the advertising executive at MOJO and Saatchi & Saatchi laughing their heads off. And if the media has no effect on behaviour, perhaps we should allow tobacco and alcohol advertisements in children's comics?

Today, one third of families are "single parent households" where the father is usually the one missing. Adolescent psychologists are adamant that "latch key children" from such families are usually poorly socialised and particularly prone to adopting the anti social messages bombarding them in the media, that selfishness, violence, criminality and drug abuse are "cool" behaviour.

Lastly, the racial demographics of Australia are changing before our eyes. And you would have to be one of the three monkeys if you could not make the connection between certain violent ethnicities and our ever rising rates of serious gun crime. In 2001, NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics published a report noting that 55% of the handgun shootings in the entire state of NSW occurred within the boundaries of two notorious ethnic ghettoes in Sydney.
Posted by LEGO, Thursday, 19 June 2014 6:01:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
jim/said/quote..<<..there are *many* things to address here....
first off:Bryant is *innocent*....>>

I HAVE HEARD/THAT THE FIRING ANGLES INDICATE..up to 3 shooters
also that the dude was encouraged.if not set up..clearly the gun comming from the 'buybacK'[IE POLICE CUSTODY..INDICATES..curious factoids/but guilty pleas cannot be appealed.

<<secondly: Bryant's guilty plea was *invalid*....being given under duress>>
to be frank..near all evidence police 'procure'..is under juress
that SORT OF comes with the 'job'[besides the guilty plea cant appeal.

<<..and being given illegitimately..because he was in the care of the Public Trustee @ the time.....>>

A TRUSTEE/NEEDS DELIVER A DUTY OF CARE..that is true
and they..usually must be present[if the defendant notified..them]
the point being.they cant speak for him[only advice against self-incrimination..a[the biggest factor.lamost as bad as allowing/signed confession]..it couLd make an appeal point/and must have been trIED..[BUT MOST LIKELY THE COURT WOULD REFUSE TO HEAR IT]

<<>.as such: a Coronial Inquest *and* re-trial is required.....>>

CERTAINLY IN LIGHT OF THE DINGO TOOK MY BABBY/AND..OTHER FACTOIDS[like children over board]..indicate it shoulf be investigated[i thought it was/i recall the extra shooters theory came from some investiogation/or other..a retrial is a missnomer[no real trial was held/guilty means the judge gets the facts/only as seen in the light of we know who done it[now what was done that he has plead guilt to.[its their system;its designed to do exactly as was done.

but if i was set up i would be blogging long and hard
yop get the facts in the file revieuwed[freedom of info/looked over by soime experts maybe presenting the proofs online/but\..RECORDED..fact is guilty.

and..[the law stops there]
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 19 June 2014 8:08:08 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<>>thirdly: Howard's gun-grab and the subsequent NFA were *both* illegal under Common Law,>>

yes sure/but govt made 'the common law'..into act
and by the acts/any who fall under the act/are made subject/under\the act[like the act that 'sections'/people mentaly incompitant/RE HIS TRUSTEE/GUARDIAN

<<. the Bill of Rights 1689 *and* violated
the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914.....>>

PUTTING THE DETAUIIL out there/for discussion/helps
anyhow the bill of rights/they will claim..isnt a right..[rights have become duty].the act that gives can be taken away/i used the magna carta/but higher rulings have denied/them standing.

standing is all important/key.really..we have two forms of law[civil or copntract law[including handshake/or word of mouth contract[like confession]..then we have criminal law..where the court is there to repair damages/by court order/but the whole justice system has been overturned

marc macmurty..knows much about these matters
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=marc+macmurty+youtube

<<..>>because: ½-baked ad hominems that simply re-hash the main-stream media party-line *propaganda* will, AFAIMC, either be ignored or responded to with contempt!>>

SUPREEM POWER CORRUPTS ABsolutly
bryant fits the patcy prophiLE..BUT PEOPLE STILl insist they can plea*..to oppressors/AND THE OPPRESSION GOES away..but life dont work/that way..

my one consistant consolation..is god knows what really happend
and he is the only one who matters..unless you include the ombudsman..[properly doing his duty]
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 19 June 2014 8:08:50 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
jimbo and One under god, the claim that Bryant was innocent and there was a conspiracy does no-one any credit.

I looked into the claims of the various conspiracy prophets as they came out and they display an amazing weeeeeakness. Firstly, there was a lot of ALL CAPS shouting about INCONTROVERTIBLE EVIDENCE, Tavistock and psyops. Second, the language and logical structure always assumed the consequent, what is also called begging the question. That means that everthing they saw or said was framed into the evidence assuming the preferred cock and bull story was true.

See what I did there?

In general when stuff happens there are viewpoints and reconciling stories that dont say the same things or misunderstand stuff that was at different times or places and assume that they are talking about the same things. People misremember all the time. This always happens worse in disasters and war. Our pet conspiracy theorists find all this stuff and go into warp drive.

Guard your rationality, people.
Posted by ChrisPer, Thursday, 19 June 2014 9:01:14 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
&#9755;anyhow the bill of rights/they will claim..isnt a right..[rights have become duty].the act that gives can be taken away/i used the magna carta/but higher rulings have denied/them standing&#9754;

the BoR/1689 *does* apply in Australia....despite the bogus "Australia Act";

the proof is that it has been utilised, on several occasions, by various journalists and politicians to support the right to free speech....and....there have been court cases wrt this...
so...they can't "cherry pick" rights out of it....
because...the BoR/1689 contains clear and unequivocal provisions on the rights of "subjects" to own fire-arms for self-defence puposes....and....most of the legal commentaries on it support this..

Howard's BS gun laws also clearly violated the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914....specifically.... s24AB, ss1(c) and ss2(a)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca191482/ ;

as such: Howard and Fischer should have been arrested for TREASON!

for more info' on the abv.....contact Ron Owen of Owen Guns, Gympie, Qld...

http://www.facebook.com/owenguns ;
Posted by jimbo!, Thursday, 19 June 2014 2:33:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
&#9755;"the claim that Bryant was innocent and there was a conspiracy does no-one any credit.

I looked into the claims of the various conspiracy prophets"&#9754;

yeh...you see....as soon as you start spouting "New World Order"-speak like "conspiracy theory/theorists", you automatically put yr-self into the ENEMY camp for those who, for wtf-ever reasons, doubt the official media accounts of...well....lotsa things....uh....you know!!....that's why they used to have this little Monday night TV show on ABC1 a while back called "Media Watch"....

and....having labelled yr-self an out-and-out ENEMY rather than some-one with an open, inquiring mind, us sceptics tend to blank you out of any further discusssion....because the issue(s) as such cannot now be settled by discussion and debate....only by VIOLENCE!!
Posted by jimbo!, Thursday, 19 June 2014 2:40:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A bit away from the subject and apologies for that, however in one of the links posted the Wandering Warriors charity was mentioned. Just to take an opportunity to recognise their work and link to the site for any who might have been unaware,

http://wanderingwarriors.org/

OK, done and please carry on.

Back to the thread, with an election imminent, John Howard the politician wanted to look masterful and decisive, and he had a populist 'solution' that would make him look good and would side-step any possible blow-back from the closure and sale of Commonwealth rehabilitation and mental health facilities. Some here would possibly be aware of (say) the splendid facilities where people with marginal IQ (Bryant is one such) could find worthwhile things to occupy them and be away from the frustration, exasperation and resulting anger they experience trying to deal with usual everyday events. Their families and carers would agree.

That is not to excuse or explain Bryant's horrendous crimes, but simply to note that if anyone would have been aware of the need for an aspiring PM to look decisive and manage the media, it was the grey, battered old Pheonix who was arising from the ashes of previous political disappointments, namely John Howard.

'Gun control' was a master stroke and met all of the conditions of any politician who was ever in need of a virus to infect minds. The result? The opposition could hardly criticise the monumental waste of money on a veritable mountain of bureaucratic 'controls' that did no better than the ordinary, time-honoured effective and robust control - the firearms licence - that was already in existence. The rest is history, as are the wasted billions of taxpayers dough.

BTW, Bryant owned and drove cars, both in Australia and abroad. The car was a critical element in his planning, setting up and commission of his offences. He didn't go for a licence because he wouldn't pass, he said. He wouldn't have got a firearms licence either and broke laws in getting illegal guns too.

Howard's 'gun-control' and wasted $$billions couldn't have stopped him either.
Posted by onthebeach, Thursday, 19 June 2014 3:42:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
10,000 Americans per year shot to death by other Americans. That's the immovable elephant in the gunnies' squalid room. They point to responsible registered gun owners as fine pillars of society (the law since 1996 is that you won't get registered unless your character stands close scrutiny -- that's the law those agitating for more killing power are railing against and seek to weaken).

They ascribe gun deaths to a flurry of other causes that they claim should be tackled instead - lunacy, subterfuge, the drive in freaks to kill people, the ethnicity of Americans killing and being killed, violent TV culture - you name it the gun nutters will grasp at it to protect their firepower. The one common factor in all gun homicides is the availability of the gun to do it with.

True there are still gun killings in Australia. True this calls for changes in the pioneering Howard laws. They need to be enforced more vigorously and amended where appropriate to strengthen them, not weaken them.

What can the average Joe and Jill do about it? As a first, challenge and continue to challenge all parties to demote gun freaks to the bottom of their electoral preferences. They get seats because of backroom deals among party apparatchiks, not because the voters want them any more than they want leprosy.
Posted by EmperorJulian, Thursday, 19 June 2014 3:49:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
EmperorJulian,

Have another go. You consistently fail to answer a simple question.

A reminder for you,

<@EmperorJulian, Wednesday, 18 June 2014 2:11:03 PM

What you are not saying is that the offenders and victims of weapons offences in the US are almost invariably young blacks from poor neighborhoods. They are most often members of gangs and drugs are involved. There is a lot of money in drugs and enforcement of payment, theft and protection of territory are common motivations for violence.

Note that I referred to weapons, because the gun is only one of the tools used to kill and injure. There are reasons why other weapons might be preferred, for example horror and less risk of detection (noise) and tracing, but no one here is much interested in any of that.

Has anyone wondered why political animals and accomplished masters of spin and wedge politics such as Australia's John Howard and US President Barack Obama have never discovered those inconvenient facts? Cynical populism trumps statesmanship.

If it is claimed that the lone wolves who carry out multiple killings can be deterred or stopped through John Howard's bureaucratic BS 'gun control' that only affects and is complied with by the respectable law-abiding citizens who would never offend and are in fact the mainstays of peaceful, civil society, lets have it.

Please show us exactly how John Howard's 'gun control' would have stopped Bryant, or any of the other evil fiends who killed in Australia?...>

You have not learned anything at all from facts posted here and you are devoid of any answers to arguments put by others, LEGO's posts for example.
Posted by onthebeach, Thursday, 19 June 2014 4:12:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
---->Back to the thread, with an election imminent, John Howard the politician wanted to look masterful and decisive, and he had a populist 'solution' that would make him look good <----

uh.....howz abt you get yr facts straight, eh?

there was *no election* imminent....

Howard had just ousted Keating with a land-slide victory; the PAM occurred a few, short weeks after Howard was sworn in...which kinda, sorta leaves the question hanging: "what other motive did Howard have to capitalise on this tragedy?"

you, of course, would be unlikely to have a satisfactory answer to that because, like most of the other fckn shills on this "Forum", you have that inalienable trait of leftists/'liberals'....a total inability to believe in "conspiracy theories", eh?
Posted by jimbo!, Thursday, 19 June 2014 5:42:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ChrisPer, so the ground moves again.

It is incorrect to lay the blame at the media. Reports of mass shootings get spread in many ways and those obsessed by such activities would no doubt find a way to obtain information about them – even in pre-internet days. Changing the way the media reported mass shootings is unlikely to influence the thinking of those already obsessed by the idea of getting their own back on the world.

The problem is much more to do with the thought processes and reasoning patterns of mass shooters.

I still don’t think you have grasped the essential point. If your opinion is the only evidence that anti-gun activists are creating mass shootings, that means there is no evidence. You have fooled yourself.

Copycat suicides are a whole different issue. There are significant underlying pressures that cause people to want to take their own life. When they get to the point, they will often copy a successful suicide (particularly if they want a successful suicide themselves and are not using it as a call for help).

As the thread seems to have gone quite peculiar, I probably won’t respond again.

I don’t mind discussing the data and evidence, but there is no reasoning with those like jimbo! who label you one of the enemy if you fail to accept their particular conspiracy theory.
Posted by Agronomist, Thursday, 19 June 2014 6:26:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Multiple killer or mass killer is a better descriptor since they may not always rely on a gun. Bryant for example also took cans of fuel and it is fortunate these were not applied in a a densely populated, confined area.

Mass killers are in fact well known for comparing their dreadful tolls with the number counts of others they follow. Where the media and others who should know better sensationalise to give the offender the country-wide and often world-wide notoriety he seeks, why it is wrong to consider the ethics and principles of reporting?

Here is an interesting article,
What Motivates Mass Murderers
We refuse to confront murderers’ motivations, and make high body counts more likely.
By John R. Lott Jr.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/342150/what-motivates-mass-murderers-john-r-lott-jr

Many mass killings end in the suicide of the offender and that can be forcing the police to kill them.
Posted by onthebeach, Thursday, 19 June 2014 7:20:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm not responding to overlapping individual pleas of the gun lobby but to the gun lobby (GL) as a whole.

First a question of my own: What exactly are the specific measures you are seeking as a result of the complaints against Howard's defence of the public from gunnies?

Now any other of the GL's excuses for the US kill score, referred to by OTB:

GL: "What you are not saying is that the offenders and victims of weapons offences in the US are almost invariably young blacks from poor neighborhoods."
Ans: "the ethnicity of Americans killing and being killed" - that is one of the GL excuses I referred to for the massive US gun kill rate.

GL: Other weapons kill people.
Ans: Sure. Any evidence that stopping gun possession has been accompanied by an increase in knifing, bashing and poisoning etc.? E.g. comparing prevalence of alternative homicide methods in America's open slather states and stricter-control states? More knife homicides in states that won't let the killers use a gun?

GL: Lunacy, drug intoxication, TV, inferior races, family breakdown - any of whose perpetrators or victims could explain America's ten thousand shooting victims.
Ans: Not without a gun. That's why we don't have 700 gun homicide victims a year here. There's those that seem to be busting a gut to get there though.
Posted by EmperorJulian, Thursday, 19 June 2014 8:10:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
as per usual, the gun-grabbers on here are being either totally or partially dishonest and mis-leading....using the lingua franca of the gun control lobby.....½-truths and distortions if not out-right lies....

for instance, in the case of the US....they consistently *FAIL* to mention how many violent crimes are prevented *each year* by civilians using fire-arms...up to two million....and...even this may be a conservative estimate if you consider those cases that are not even officially counted....like, for instance, brandishing a fire-arm to scare off an intruder, a mugger, a car-jacker or an armed robber...

another for instance....
if only *four major, urban areas* (Chicago, Detroit, LA & New Orleans) are excluded from the violent crime stats, then, overall, the US is safer than Belgium and *much safer* than many parts of Australia....
those afore-said four areas contain the highest concentrations of gang-bangers...usually black gangs....and...some Mexican gangs made up largely of illegal aliens...

so...which is it?

does the US have a gun violence problem or a violent young black man/gang problem?

a final for instance...
even if you accept the official media accounts of these so-called lone-nut gun-man massacres (and increasing n°s of people do not!), their relative rarity (when compared to the prevalence of other violent crimes) and the relative unlikelihood of the average punter being "caught up" in one, provide *ZERO* justification for *any* draconian gun control @ all!

more here....
http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.2/gun-facts-6-2-screen.pdf ;
Posted by jimbo!, Thursday, 19 June 2014 10:49:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is a laugh;

Quote,

“If it is claimed that the lone wolves who carry out multiple killings can be deterred or stopped through John Howard's bureaucratic BS 'gun control' that only affects and is complied with by the respectable law-abiding citizens who would never offend and are in fact the mainstays of peaceful, civil society, lets have it. Please show us exactly how John Howard's 'gun control' would have stopped Bryant, or any of the other evil fiends who killed in Australia?”

End quote.

It has been repeated so I suppose me doing the same is okay.

Howard's supposed BS 'gun control' achieved this;

In the 10 years before Howard's gun laws there were 8 shootings in Australia involving more than two people being killed by a single assailant with a gun;

1987 Joseph Schwab – Killed with a gun 5 human beings before being shot dead by police
1987 Julian Knight – Slaughtered with guns 5 people and wounded another 19
1987 Frank Vitkovic – Shot and killed 8 and wounded a further 5
1990 Paul Evers – Murdered with a gun 5 people
1991 Wade Frankum – Took the lives with a gun of 7 people and wounded 6 others
1992 Malcolm Baker – Blew away 6 people
1996 Martin Bryant – Massacred with guns 35 innocent people and wounded a further 21 people

In the 18 years since the count is ZERO.

I know this irrefutable and overwhelming statistic must stick in the craw of guys like OTB. They dance around with what ifs, with statistics from the US, with cost analysis but in the end they can't BS their way around the patently obvious fact, the gun control measures were extraordinarily effective. To claim otherwise is to be open to the charge of being delusional, though judging from some of the posters here they are in good company.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Friday, 20 June 2014 12:37:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One very important point about the Port Arthur massacre, the supposed reason for implementing much tougher in laws in Australia is that MARTIN BRYANT WAS NOT THE GUNMAN! Thanks to governments in western countries having much less power to control stuff posted on the Internet than influence mainstream media,anyone can now examine info that they hoped would remain hidden. Try googling eg "Port Arthur Massacre Coverup" and have a good look through what comes up. It can be readily concluded that the Port Arthur Massacre was planned by anti gun psychopaths and Martin Bryant was selected well in advance and set up to take the blame. Seems the real main gunman was a young bloke from South Australia who committed suicide six months later. His father had been around and obviously had some involvement in the conspiracy. Note a couple of important description discrepancies. (Are also circumstantial ones) Bryant had formerly proven a left handed mediocre shooter. Gunman was a right handed crack shot. Bryant's appearance was of in late 20's with smooth facial complexion. Several witnesses noted gunman as no older than early 20's with heavily pock marked face. Note with most alleged "lone gun nut massacres, gunman usually supposedly commits suicide or is killed in shootout. Attempts to achieve this with Martin failed as did subsequent attempt to have him burnt by torching Seascape Cottage. He came running out in an apparently drugged state (obviously not enough!) unarmed, suffering severe burns and yelling "Don't shoot, I am the hostage". (In a police exercise?) He had been fiends with owners of cottage. Then there was a quick "Trial by Media" with Martin being portrayed as guilty with what amounts to contempt of court. He was held in illegal solitary confinement until after obvious considerable duress was persuaded to plead guilty. Any attempt to convict him against a proper defence would have obviously been thrown out of court from lack of evidence he was the gunman and a lot against. Hopefully as this becomes widely recognised he can be given a retrial and pardon.
Posted by mox, Friday, 20 June 2014 11:06:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It seems a major reason why there have been no more mass shootings in Australia done on supposed initiative of a deranged individual "lone nut gunman' is that Port Arthur incorporated major stuff ups to the plan devised by anti gun psychopaths. This has discouraged them from trying another. However, obviously some more recent ones in the USA have been planned. Needs some to be properly exposed and the REAL CRIMINALS brought to justice to stop more of them - and also reduce genuine dimwit copycat shootings. eg Sandy Hook is now becoming widely recognised as more like "Shady Hoax" thanks to Internet exposure.

Seems initial plan at Port Arthur was to slaughter a group of elderly American tourists at Port Arthur cemetery on "Isle of the Dead". This would have helped anti gun agenda of then US President Bill Clinton. Then end it with siege at Seascape Cottage to frame and kill Bryant and allow real gunman to get away. However, a last minute due to timetable change not noted earlier, this proved impracticable. Those slaughtered instead obviously included some who had some involvement of the massacre conspiracy.

Then Martin Bryant not being killed presented a major problem. It required a lot of corrupt efforts, including by senior politicians, police and the anti gun mainstream media to cover up the true story at the time. Now it can be readily exposed via social media and other websites, hopefully an enquiry into the whole incident and retrial for Martin Bryant can be arranged. Note there are obviously still many people in positions of influence who will do everything they can to stop this and perpetuate the official lies though. Seems to me if proper legal processes are followed, it would be possible to charge John Howard with being an accessory after the fact to the PAM due to his obvious considerable involvement in helping the cover ups.
Posted by mox, Friday, 20 June 2014 12:01:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MOXY..ITS SOP [STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE]
LEST WE FORGET THEM POLITICAL KIDS KILLED IN SWEDEN?
WHERE poolice took hours to get on site..ITS COMMEDY CAPERS IF IT WASNT ALL SO DELIBERATED..911.WAS SET UP..CRYSTAL NACHT..ITS ENDLESS.

i hate to know the damage a fuel takers could do running its load through the sewer/line downtown..or into a lift/any half wit can think up ways to make maqss murder..but govt uses it rooteenly...

sop...fight or flight
keep us unbalanced in fear then lord it over us by fear..
BUT THEY WHO LISTEN TO..DEMONS..reveal their own inner demons.

by their works will we know them..they pick up fools
or tell them ..'its a training' exersize'..[they even high jack kids and say just do it//or else[these people are scum/most of them are armed/its them the elite really fear

i often thought..all them security dudes
almost like he is in 'protective'-custody..but then hear the words from those watching/protecting..'dont worry mate..we wont make anything happen/if ya just do as ya told'..[its not only your life we hold.

how stupid..to kil innocents[indeed how insane to kill evil doers
THEY JUST BECOME DEMONS..AND HAUNT US LOOKING FOR ENERGY[ANGER/FEAR\WASTEd emotion;they feed off

funny enough much evil in hell/isnt even animate
its just attracted to vile linke iron filings to magnets

you thUnk it/thus you Attracted much worse\INTO YOU
SPIRITS..INFUENCE US TO DO/MOTIVATERS..WETHER THEY FILL A BOTTLE OR YA GUT.

The abrupt transition from established science to outlandish woo is positively comical. And once the quackery starts, it doesn't stop. You're first treated to a background on all things demonic (boldness added to emphasize the absurdity):
http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/06/published_scientific_paper_blames_schizophrenia_on_demons.html
In our region, demons are believed to be intelligent and unseen creatures that occupy a parallel world to that of mankind. In many aspects of their world, they are very similar to us. They marry, have children, and die. The life span, however, is far greater than ours (Ashour 1989).
Posted by one under god, Friday, 20 June 2014 12:56:24 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
1987 Joseph Schwab
1987 Julian Knight
1987 Frank Vitkovic
1990 Paul Evers
1991 Wade Frankum
1992 Malcolm Baker
1996 Martin Bryant

the only name on that list that really counts is Martin Bryant's and all the available evidence indicates his total innocence....

Vitkovic & Frankum can *also* be struck out because there's a reasonable amount of evidence that the two incidents they were allegedly involved in (Queen Street and Strathfield) were either false-flags or hoaxes...

>>I know this irrefutable and overwhelming statistic must stick in the craw of guys like OTB. They dance around with what ifs, with statistics from the US, with cost analysis but in the end they can't BS their way around the patently obvious fact, the gun control measures were extraordinarily effective. To claim otherwise is to be open to the charge of being delusional, though judging from some of
the posters here they are in good company.<<

wouldn't matter is there was *one mass shooting per week*....because the right to own fire-arms for self-defence purposes....and....that *includes* the most effective firearms like mil'-style semi-autos with hi-cap mgzns, is so basic and so important that *NO EXCUSE* can justify its removal.....

"The right to keep and bear arms is so much a fundamental precept,
in respect to the capacity of the citizen to defend himself, his family, his friends and his property against military invasion, armed insurrection, totalitarian regimes and felons as to over-ride the will of the majority. The inalienable right to keep and bear arms is balanced by a corresponding duty; not to infringe the right of one's neighbour to security of person and property"
Sir Laurence Street, (former) NSW Chief Justice
Posted by jimbo!, Friday, 20 June 2014 3:44:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The USA is touted by gun prohibitionists as proof about how gun availability is the primary cause of why the USA's homicide rate is five times higher than Australia. But this argument can be easily countered by pointing out that if all the gun related homicides in the USA were completely removed from the US homicide statistics, the USA's homicide rate would still be twice the Australian rate. Any fair minded person would have to concede that something other than firearms is the reason why US citizens kill other US citizens a lot more than Australians do.

According to the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics, in 2001, 55% of the handgun shootings in the entire state of NSW occurred within the boundaries of two notorious ethnic ghettoes (Canturbury-Bankstown and Fairfield-Cabramatta-Fairfield.)

That certain ethnicities are very disproportionately connected with violent crimes involving firearms is self evident. In the USA, the connection between firearm availability, homicide rates and ethnicity is more striking. Australia has a homicide rate of 1.8 per 100,000, which is almost identical to the northern, mostly white US states where firearm laws are very liberal. According to figures published in the Sporting Shooters "Shooters Journal" magazine, in 1990, the homicide rate for New Hampshire was 1.8, 1.71 for North Dakota, and 1.1 for Vermont.

As in Australia, it is those US cities and suburbs containing very high numbers of certain crime prone minorities (cities which usually have strict gun laws) which greatly distort the US homicide rate. The overall inner city US black male homicide rate are 122 per 100,000, and the rate is a whopping 227 per 100,000 among Washington DC black male teens. The Hispanic homicide rate is almost as bad.

If culture is a guide to behaviour, then it is hardly surprising that some ethnic minorities are so violent when you watch or listen to their culture of their young males. Rap music and it's associated videos constantly glamourise the lifestyle of violent street gang members, as well as drug abuse , misogyny, disrespect of authority, and the solving of personnel disputes with weapons.

Continued
Posted by LEGO, Friday, 20 June 2014 5:39:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Continued

Video images of drive by shooting with a rap music background as mated images of weapons best suited to performing that aim. Add to that the penchant for rap music groups to possess charming names like THE MURDERERS and THE LO LIFES. One artist "Lil Wayne" threatens in one "song", "I'll cock my Glock and spray ya." THE LO LIFES gave an interview in THE SOURCE pop music magazine which boasted about their shoplifting skills.

My premise, is, that massacres and spiralling crime rates are not caused by the mere presence of guns in any society, it is caused by our increasingly violent culture which is being pitched to increasingly poorly socialised and immature young men, to think that extreme violence, a sneering contempt for authority, drug abuse, criminal behaviour, contempt for females, and possessing the callousness to actually go and kill somebody, is the hallmark of a Real Man.

Such media transmitted conditioning is a powerful message to any fatherless, poorly socialised low status young male, with a low IQ and a poor self image, who is desperate to enhance his social standing among his peers.
Posted by LEGO, Friday, 20 June 2014 5:41:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
re: "LEGO"

uh....yeh...society is getting more ugly, violent and dangerous all the time....so.....even *more* reason for people to be armed if not heavily armed.....wouldn't you say, eh?

oh...BTW...for those interested....
the Port Arthur massacre....a *staged* HOAX?
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=786707531369564&set=gm.10152498788748633 ;
Posted by jimbo!, Friday, 20 June 2014 6:53:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=786707531369564&set=gm.10152498788748633
http://rinf.com/alt-news/money/govt-failed-poverty-doubles-uk-last-30-years/
http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2014/06/19/406592-fox-news-viewership-drops-to-12-year-low/
http://www.intellihub.com/ultimate-purpose-gmos/

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/06/148511-types-websites-school-doesnt-block-students-visiting-says-lot/

http://xrepublic.tv/node/9488

http://investmentwatchblog.com/red-alert-isis-militants-have-us-passports-mother-of-all-false-flags-underway/
Posted by one under god, Friday, 20 June 2014 8:00:05 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear LEGO,

Congratulations on putting together a post that argues your point of view without derision.

Allow me to put a counter argument.

John Howard's gun control laws were primarily addressed at tackling spree shootings that had culminated in Port Arthur Massacre. While every life lost to guns is important the thought that innocent people could be victims in such an arbitrary fashion was what horrified this nation. It wasn't a matter of them being in the wrong place since Port Arthur was a tourist attraction not some industrial estate in a violent, depressed suburb. They were not there in the middle of the night nor did they have any other reason to be concerned for their safety. Yet they were gunned down in their droves.

The Milperra Massacre between the Banditos and the Comancheros left 6 bikers dead but also a 14 year old girl who was an innocent bystander. It was her death that prompted the changes to the NSW gun laws.

Family killings are less acceptable in the public's eye because often it is defenceless woman and children who are involved, but even here the perpetrator is targeting specific members.

It is the lone wolf sprees that most horrify people because the killer targets completely random, innocent people with the only reason being that the opportunity to take a life presents itself. The public can imagine themselves or their loved ones being caught, through no fault of their own, in a similar situation and there is little they can do to protect them from it.

Howard's gun control measures have been spectacularly successful in halting completely this type of crime.

Another feature of this style of killing is that the ethnicity of the perpetrators is overwhelmingly white. Over 75% of all multiple shootings by a lone assailant in the US are carried out by white males.

Cont..
Posted by SteeleRedux, Saturday, 21 June 2014 1:05:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cont..

Further of the 431 multiple shootings from 2005 till the end of 2012 less than a quarter were gang related.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/24/interactive-map-the-us-shooting-epidemic.html

What are particularly horrendous are the school shootings in the USA. I had a quick look at the elementary and high school spree shootings with 3+ victims killed. All the perpetrators were white except for one who was native American. So for fairness I have included university shootings. The following is a list from 1960 onwards including the shooter's ethnicity.

Charles Joseph Whitman, an American engineering student and former U.S. Marine, who killed 16 people and wounded 32 others in and around the Tower of the University of Texas in Austin, August 1, 1966.
Ethnicity: White

Olean High School shooting occurred on December 30, 1974. The gunman, 17-year-old Anthony F. Barbaro, an honor student and member of the school's rifle team, indiscriminately shot at people on the street from windows at the third floor of the school building. Three people were killed and another 11 people were injured during the shooting.
Ethnicity: White

California State University massacre committed by a custodian, Edward Charles Allaway, on July 12, 1976. 7 people died.
Ethnicity: White

Cleveland School massacre, January 17, 1989. The gunman, Patrick Purdy, shot and killed 5 schoolchildren, and wounded 29 other schoolchildren and one teacher, before committing suicide.
Ethnicity: White

University of Iowa shooting, November 1, 1991. The gunman was Gang Lu. He killed four members of the university faculty and one student, and seriously wounded another student, before committing suicide.
Ethnicity: Asian

Lindhurst High School shooting occurred on May 1, 1992. 20-year-old Eric Houston, was a former student at Lindhurst High Schoolkilled three students and one teacher, and wounded nine students and a teacher before surrendering to police.
Ethnicity: White

Frontier Middle School shooting occurred on February 2, 1996. 14-year-old Barry Dale Loukaitis, killed his algebra teacher and two students.
Ethnicity: White

San Diego State University shooting August 15, 1996.Three professors were killed by masters degree student Frederick Martin Davidson.
Ethnicity: White

Cont..
Posted by SteeleRedux, Saturday, 21 June 2014 1:07:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cont..

Heath High School shooting Monday, December 1, 1997. Fourteen-year-old Michael Carneal opened fire on a group of praying students, killing three and injuring five more.
Ethnicity: White

Mitchell Scott Johnson and Andrew Douglas Golden on March 24, 1998 at Westside Middle School, Arkansas. The two boys shot and killed total of five people, four female students and a teacher. Ten other people, nine students and one teacher, were injured.
Shooter 1 - Ethnicity: White
Shooter 2 - Ethnicity: White

Columbine High School massacre April 20, 1999. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold murdered a total of 12 students and one teacher. They injured 24 additional students, with three other people being injured while attempting to escape the school. The pair then committed suicide.
Shooter 1 - Ethnicity: White
Shooter 2 - Ethnicity: White

Appalachian School of Law shooting January 16, 2002. Three people were killed and three others were wounded when a former student, 43-year-old Nigerian immigrant Peter Odighizuwa, opened fire in the school with a handgun.
Ethnicity: African

Red Lake High school massacre occurred on March 21, 2005. 16-year-old Weise shot and killed seven people at the school, and wounded five others.
Ethnicity: Native American

The Virginia Tech massacre, April 16, 2007. Seung-Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people and wounded 17 others before committing suicide
Ethnicity: Asian

Northern Illinois University shooting February 14, 2008. Steven Kazmierczak killed five people and injured twenty-one, before committing suicide.
Ethnicity: White

University of Alabama three people were killed and three others wounded in a shooting on February 12, 2010.
Ethnicity: White

Chardon High School February 27, 2012. Three male students died.
Ethnicity: White

Oikos University April 2, 2012. 7 killed by 43-year-old One L. Goh, a former student at the school.
Ethnicity: Asian

Sandy Hook Elementary School December 14, 2012 Adam Lanza killed 20 children and 6 adult staff members.
Ethnicity: White

Please note there is not one African-American shooter among them and the vast majority are white. Can we have a discussion on why this should be so?
Posted by SteeleRedux, Saturday, 21 June 2014 1:08:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SteeleRedux, "Howard's gun control measures have been spectacularly successful in halting completely this type of crime"

How?

You and others cannot show how John Howard's redundant bureaucratic procedures and paperwork might do that.

It is known that Bryant for example didn't obey the laws then and he certainly wouldn't now. That is what criminals do, break laws. A heap of paper and procedures don't stop the middle Eastern bikies (criminals who can't ride bikes)in Sydney from committing drive-bt shootings and nor would Bryant be deterred. Bryant drove illegally (no licence) in his unregistered cars to buy that illegal gun that had been surrendered to police in a police amnesty. Bryant didn't bother with a firearms licence and he wouldn't have been awarded one anyway, which he would have known.

Howard's 'gun control' doesn't stop or even mildly deter a Bryant. Billions of taxpayers' $$ wasted sooling police onto ordinary law-abiding, licensed citizens. How does that make sense?
Posted by onthebeach, Saturday, 21 June 2014 7:34:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Widely held views about the underlying causes of Port Arthur and obviously some other supposed "Lone Nut Gunman" type massacres are wrong. Now thanks to the Internet, any individual can much more readily research details of what really happened. The true stories are often different in important respects to official ones. Anyone with any intelligence analysing details will conclude that MARTIN BRYANT WAS NOT THE PORT ARTHUR GUNMAN! It was a psyop. ie psychological operation planned by anti gun psychopaths for the purpose of gaining support for tough gun laws. Those involved in this criminal conspiracy as accessories before, during and after the fact should be brought to justice. This includes some senior politicians and police.

Re official stories about firearms supposedly used at Port Arthur, is obvious to me they are full of inconsistencies and include obvious lies. Even though I have not yet studied detailed analysis of this by gunsmith Stuart Beattie. Note how an unsuccessful attempt was made to bully Hobart gun dealer Terry Hill into providing a statement that he sold Martin Bryant a firearm, which he did not to suit the official dishonest story. As punishment his dealers licence was cancelled for a small alleged infringement. I recall story how Martin had about a month before the massacre taken a .308 semi auto rifle needing repairs to Terry. He was horrified. Had a loaded 15 shot magazine in it and a round in the breech. No competent shooter would carry a rifle like this unless getting ready to shoot. Massacre planners obviously intended this as part of setting up incriminating evidence against Martin and that this rifle would be collected by Martin for use in the massacre, which it was not. Also, he apparently produced a licence in the name of MARTIN RYAN ( Bryant shortened!) Who in high places supplied him with this? Remember he was apparently not capable of passing a drivers' licence test
Posted by mox, Saturday, 21 June 2014 10:57:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I notice by the length of this thread that the gunnies' fingers are still itching for a trigger with the result that the string of pre-Howard massacres will start up again.

Interesting that Bryant got an illegal kill-weapon that had been handed in to the police. I dunno what Howard's "redundant bureaucratic procedures and paperwork" [OTB] prescribes but I have a sneaking suspicion that it would not allow police to supply murder weapons to homicidal maniacs like Bryant.

The elephant remains in the gunnies' room: ten thousand Americans shot dead by other Americans every year. A plethora of ridiculous attempts to explain it away have been put up, the most squalid being that they were mainly only blacks (which they aren't), while tiptoeing around the fact that each gun death came from a gun.

"Sooling police onto ordinary law-abiding, licensed citizens" rates a horse laugh. Where in Australia are police harassing licensed gun owners? The protection the gunnies are seeking to overturn is the law putting conditions on obtaining a gun and if police are chasing anyone up it'll be criminals who have UNLICENSED guns.

The message coming across loud and clear is that citizens are under attack and need to bring pressure to bear on political parties to put the gun lobby last on the preference list in order not to deliver Senate seats to them. With luck the chance may come soon with a double dissolution.
Posted by EmperorJulian, Saturday, 21 June 2014 12:17:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
fixed it for ya, drongo....
The message coming across loud and clear is that citizens are under attack(by crims, thugs, hoons, terrorists, tyrants and [potential] foreign invaders/aggresors) and need to bring pressure to bear on political parties to put the gun control lobby *out of BUSINESS* Senate seats to them. With luck the chance may come soon as most people are sick and tired of living in fear!

ARM Australia!
http://www.facebook.com/groups/ARM.Australia ;
Posted by jimbo!, Saturday, 21 June 2014 3:20:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
fixed it for ya.....
The message coming across loud and clear is that citizens are under attack(by crims, thugs, hoons, terrorists, tyrants and [potential] foreign invaders/aggresors) and need to bring pressure to bear on political parties to put the gun control lobby *out of BUSINESS*
With luck, the chance may come soon as most people are sick and tired of living in fear!

ARM Australia!
http://www.facebook.com/groups/ARM.Australia ;
Posted by jimbo!, Saturday, 21 June 2014 3:25:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Jimbo: The elephant's still in your lounge room.
Posted by EmperorJulian, Saturday, 21 June 2014 3:36:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Steelredux.

I do not necessarily disagree with strong gun laws, and I do not hold John Howard in contempt for trying to protect the lives of his people and improve safety within Australian society.

My beef is that firearm owners and firearms have been scapegoated by the media and by the trendy lefties as the primary reason for gun crimes including massacres. Just remove the guns and everything will be OK. Hunters and shooters are "gunners" and "Rambo's" who's dedication to their toys is endangering the entire community. The state of NSW has increased the severity of firearm laws no less than four times before John Howard's buyback IN RESPONSE TO rising rates of violent crime. After the gun buyback, NSW has AGAIN made it's gun laws more onerous (now they are trying ammunition prohibitions) because all of the previous changes to our firearm laws did nothing to stop the almost nightly shootings in the Arab areas of Sydney.

Firearm laws are a litmus paper test on how violent any society is. Violent societies need strong gun laws, while peaceful societies do not. English society was once so violence free, that much to the amazement of every other police force in the world, English police alone had no need to carry handguns. That has now changed and English beat police are now armed, despite the fact that all privately owned handguns are banned. Australia once had very lenient gun laws, very strict censorship of the entertainment media, and a low rate of serious criminal activity involving firearms. Today, it is the other way around. Our gun laws keep getting more onerous, our entertainment media can glamourise criminal behaviour and drug taking all it likes, and our society keeps getting more dangerous.

Now, you have brought up a couple of important points which I will address.

The first, is that I agree with you that massacre behaviour is primarily committed by white people. There does indeed appear to be a genetic factor as well as a cultural one when it comes to serious criminal behaviour.

To be continued.
Posted by LEGO, Saturday, 21 June 2014 3:38:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Continued

The offence of raping elderly females is almost exclusively committed by black males. Nobody knows why. Almost all serial killers are white. Nobody knows why.

Secondly, your claim that no one is now getting massacred ignored the fact that 14 people were burned to death at Childers, Qld, and the weapon involved was a box of matches.

Lastly, I have a book on the phenomenon of student school killings in my own library and despite the fact that the author of that book claimed that popular culture had no part in the new phenomenon of kids killing kids, it is clear from reading the book that it did. One noted US criminologist (Bill Reisman) who specialises in violent juvenile behaviour has examined the bedrooms of boys who have committed school massacres. He notes the violent posters, the violent music, the violent movies, and the violent computer games where shooting people down for fun is the aim of the game. He said "When we go into the rooms after the fact, it's all there. The signs are all there."

Now, I am not against divorce, and I do not wish to see the entertainment industry return to the days when Shakespeare's VENUS AND ADONIS, or even scientific works like PSYCHOANALYSIS and CURRENT PSYCHOLOGY were banned. But what I am saying, is that it is clear that if people wish to create a safe society, then always blaming guns while giving our "artistic" class the a free pass to create media promoting drug abuse, gang membership, revenge behaviour, the idea that Real Men are killers, or extoll the joys of raping your mother or bashing your skanky ho girlfriend, it going to achieve nothing.

Just as in Britain, violence in Australian society is going to rise long after all guns are banned because our media industry is creating a product which is harming our society. Like the tobacco industry before them, they know what they are doing but they are very successful in denying it and shifting the blame. And the "artistic" class who are the industries employees support them.
Posted by LEGO, Saturday, 21 June 2014 3:39:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear LEGO,

Thank you for your considered reply.

You wrote;

“Firearm laws are a litmus paper test on how violent any society is. Violent societies need strong gun laws, while peaceful societies do not. English society was once so violence free, that much to the amazement of every other police force in the world, English police alone had no need to carry handguns. That has now changed and English beat police are now armed, despite the fact that all privately owned handguns are banned.”

I am afraid you will find this is not correct.

“The issue of routine arming in Great Britain was raised after the 1952 Derek Bentley case, in which a Constable was shot dead and a Sergeant severely wounded, and again after the 1966 Massacre of Braybrook Street, in which three London officers were killed. As a result, around 17% of officers in London became authorised to carry firearms. After the deaths of a number of members of the public in the 1980s fired upon by police, control was considerably tightened, many officers had their firearm authorisation revoked, and training for the remainder was greatly improved. As of 2005, around 7% of officers in London are trained in the use of firearms. Firearms are also only issued to an officer under strict guidelines.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_Kingdom

Further surveys done of the police membership consistently show over 80% are against the routine arming of police officers.

Gun related offenses have declined for the seventh year in a row in the UK.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Saturday, 21 June 2014 4:50:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
re: "Emperor Julian"

no elephant here, champ....but there might be *several* in *your* lounge-room, eh?
Posted by jimbo!, Saturday, 21 June 2014 5:03:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@EmperorJulian, Saturday, 21 June 2014 12:17:46 PM

With respect, you demonstrate your ignorance of the relevant regulations now and before the John Howard inspired bureaucratic monstrosity that wastes police time monitoring law-abiding citizens.

You just don't get it, you cannot separate the good guys from the bad guys. You have no idea of assessing risk and risk management, and misunderstand cause and effect. That comes as no surprise because the highly secretive few persons behind 'gun control' activism in Australia do the same. Ignorance that refuses to examine facts is bigotry.

In the case of 'that' cloak and dagger secretive 'gun control', the site owner/s spruik for public donations and support, but they refuse to identify themselves, refuse membership and in fact refuse to divulge any of the details that a legitimate person and political lobby groups would volunteer without thought.

The Greens, in particular the Trotskyist NSW Greens' Watermelon faction - a strident, barking-mad rump of the lunar Greens - appear to have links with 'that' secret squirrel gun control outfit (probably one or two people who are themselves public servants!). The Greens are also secretive about their links with them. To top it off, the individual/s who are behind 'gun control' are alleged to receive sponsorship and travel from a shady undeclared overseas source, a billionaire currency dealer who it is said once nearly sent the Bank of England broke (nothing said about the small mums and dads investors who would have been bankrupted).

These are the deliberately obscure influences behind 'gun control'. It is all secret squirrel, ignorance and skewed factoids.

My concern as always is that government be transparent in its decisions, measure results and demonstrate that it is getting value for the money it has compulsorily taken from Taxpayers. While 'gun control' is any easy mantra to score populism in the media and particularly with the ABC(?!), it fails any independent, objective test.

John Howard's 'gun control' was a $2billion mistake. Totally ineffective and misleading, it would fail the lax advertising standards that apply to those hard sell, snake-oil, cosmetics advertisers on late night TV.
Posted by onthebeach, Saturday, 21 June 2014 7:02:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LEGO,
Correction. Most serial killers are not White, in terms of bodycount there are only three Whites in the top ten worldwide and in the U.S.A the majority of serial killers are actually Black.
Serial killing is defined as three or more victims with cooling off periods in between, so the co-relation between race and crime is again borne out in statistics.
The image of the serial killer as exclusively a heterosexual, middle class White male is a fictional creation of Liberal Jewish film-makers, they invert reality to suit their own beliefs when they create TV shows like Law and order:SVU.
The serial killer is most likely to be non White, homosexual or both.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8gYc5fvMQ0
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Saturday, 21 June 2014 9:10:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And still the elephant remains stubbornly in place: ten thousand Americans shot dead annually by other Americans and the Australian gun lobby hopes to use a Senate presence to wedge a rollback of the Howard gun law reforms by an avalanche of repeated complaints and conspiracy theories without producing a shred of evidence that any Americans could have shot their countrymen dead without using a gun or that any Australians could be shot dead without using a gun.

The standard BS about "leftists", "populism", the ABC, the Greens, blacks, and blah blah blah is trotted out as expected of those who are driven to try to hide the elephant, effectively defining their type in doing so.

And tellingly, nary a one of them comes up with any suggestion of a legal framework to adopt to replace the laws that have been keeping us much safer for the past 18 years than before Howard stood up to the gun freaks.

But still not safe enough. The Howard reforms might well be reviewed to make them tough enough and punitive enough to shut off the residual gun killings, and if the freaks fan up a head of steam for their deadly project a public discussion of how to do so might be the best response. I even have some ideas of my own, for another thread not this one.
Posted by EmperorJulian, Sunday, 22 June 2014 1:15:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Steelredux.

As an experienced debater, I sense that my last post hit home with you, as the only aspect which you countered was my premise that English beat police are now armed. I have found previously, that my less intelligent opponents characteristically get more strident in their abuse and more desperate to keep hammering away at trivial points as if they were "elephants in the room.", while the intelligent ones like you tend to go a bit more quiet as they reflect on what I submit.

On the topic of the arming of general duties police, my premise was for English police, while your figures were for British police. British police forces are unlike Australian state police, as they are county controlled. The English county of Nottinghamshire was the first county police force to equip it's general duties police with handguns, and my information was that the practice was spreading. In any case, your argument does not detract one whit from the essential point that I was making, that violent societies need strict gun laws, while peaceful societies do not. And that no amount of gun control is going to make any difference if your society keeps educating it's youth through it's entertainment media that illegal drug taking is fun, and that violent criminal behaviour is adventurous and admirable behaviour.

In 1998, after the London Times produced the blazing banner headline KILLINGS RISE AS 3 MILLION HANDGUNS FLOOD BRITAIN, Chief Inspector Colin Greenwood was quoted as saying.....

"No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less than when there were no controls of any sort. Half a century of strict controls on pistols has ended, perversely, with a far greater use of this class of weapon in crime, than ever before."

To be continued
Posted by LEGO, Sunday, 22 June 2014 5:27:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Continued

It is hardly surprising that handguns are so prized among criminals. After all, not only has the entertainment industry glamourised the lifestyles of violent criminals, drug pushers and illegal drug users, they have mandated the use of handguns in criminal behaviour to such a degree, that no self respecting violent criminal or drug pusher would be without one. In the same way that the entertainment industry uses "incidental" smoking scenes to by pass bans on tobacco advertising, and other manufactures use movie "product placements" in movies to advertise their wares, the gun industry has found that promoting it's weapons through the media is an ideal way to advertise.

Violent movie stars are now associated with specific weapons. The .44 Magnum handgun was considered too big by most shooters until it was popularised by Clint Eastwood in the "Dirty Harry" series of movies. Sylvester Stallone created a demand for the previously little known "Rambo" type survival knife. These knives are even reproduced as rubber toys for boys so they can act out stabbing their little boy friends. In the movie US MARSHALLS, movie star Tommy lee Jones barks at a young officer "Get rid of that sissy gun and get a Glock!" But these movies do not just create a demand for the products used by movie stars by young people, who are desperate to model their lives on their violent role model heroes, they produce a desire to emulate their violent and sometimes murderous behaviour as well.

The arguments put forward by the media and it's employees, that the images shown and the messages transmitted by the print, audio or visual media have no effect upon human behaviour, would be regarded with hilarity on Madison Avenue. So too, manufacturers and film makers would grin at each other and give themselves knowing winks. It just goes to show that the servants of Mammon are a lot smarter than the naive servants of left wing idealism.
Posted by LEGO, Sunday, 22 June 2014 5:27:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hear hear Lego! In Trinidad possession of a gun is mandated to imprisonment, extremely violent place. In Switzerland every able bodied man in their defence force has, at his home, an automatic assault rifle. Switzerland is a very non-violent society.
What sticks in my throat is that all the people who cheered the gun confiscation are silent over the namby pamby treatment of gun carrying crims.
It sickens me hearing all this rubbish from the anti-gun lobby when it is me who loses my guns. However they are delighted that their crim mates can murder happily away, You have no shame!
Posted by JBowyer, Sunday, 22 June 2014 8:09:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Democratically elected Governments should be most reluctant to pass more laws to control citizens. Laws should be based frimly on evidence and never be exercises in political populism, where politicians try to win favour with the perverse demands of editors whose aim is to increase their audience, to sell papers, but they don't mind the power of leaning on politicians at the same time.

It does not matter one iota what firearms or number of firearms are held by the responsible, law-abiding people who are licensed. Very few hoplophobes would ever be aware of their neighbours who hunt game and also perform a most valuable service through helping to control feral pests that could easily carry diseases and parasites to damage the livestock industry.

Why do leftist hypocrites such as the Trotskyist NSW 'Watermelon' Greens deliberately and cynically always conflate peace-loving good citizens and their legal firearms, with foul criminals whose modus operandi is to break laws and when they choose the firearms regulations too?

Why do these leftists foolishly and perversely support criminals like the Middle Eastern thugs who are taking over outlaw motorcycle clubs to extend their drug empires, and some simply to indulge in the recreational mayhem they imported as their traditions? Conversely these controlling leftie political Progressives' ill-intent towards their fellow law-abiding Australians is demonstrated by their pleading for further erosion of the civil rights of ordinary citizens.

What public good exactly is to be had from laws that encourage police to keep personal particulars of the police-certified non-criminals, duly licensed ordinary mums and dads, on police computers as 'persons of interest' and to pay visits to their homes in fully marked police vehicles to conduct random inspections? Yet when State governments concerned about drug and violence stop a bikie thug in the street we are supposed to believe that is a gross infringement of the bikie's rights.

The 'elephant in the room' is the murky, secret-squirrel world of 'gun control' activists and their links with shady, wealthy foreigners who interfere in the politics and domestic affairs of other countries including in Australian society and politics.
Posted by onthebeach, Sunday, 22 June 2014 12:57:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The 'elephant in the room' is the murky, secret-squirrel world of 'gun control' activists and their links with shady, wealthy foreigners who interfere in the politics and domestic affairs of other countries including in Australian society and politics."

absolutely!

see.....here's the problem....
and....like you said....*the REAL "elephant in the room" *, eh?

the 1996/1997 Howard gun grab...

how come a miniscule, no-account org' like Gun Control Australia (total membership: six men and a dog....*if* that!) got so much prime-time media spruiking, eh?

and....yet....an org like the SSAA with 150K+ members could barely get a 'look in'......

oy vey!

a mystery, itz!!

so....who's the *real* powerful lobby group here, eh?
GCA (funded by international gangsters like the Soros Foundation) or law-abiding fire-arm owners like the SSAA, eh?

more here: http://tinyurl.com/rbcc-ptrs-prfl ;
Posted by jimbo!, Sunday, 22 June 2014 3:26:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"It sickens me hearing all this rubbish from the anti-gun lobby when it
is me who loses my guns. However they are delighted that their crim mates can murder happily away, You have no shame!"

that's why gun-grabbers like "the Emperor" cannot really be engaged in rational discussion.....when you present heaps of facts and evidence (like i have, for instance) proving that: (a)gun control is bogus and (b)the justifications for same (these faux/'staged' mass-shootings) are, also, transparently bogus...they 'back off'....then....when they think 'the coast is clear', they simply return and regurg' the same BS abt 'elephants in the room' and such malarkey!

that's a typical pseudo-marxist tactic...straight out of their play-book...

"a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth" V I Lenin
and: "call your enemy what you are; accuse your enemy of what you do!"

it's an ideological/philosophical conflict that *cannot* be resolved via debate and discussion...

in the end....to coin one of their mentors' aphorisms:

"political power comes out of the barrel of a gun"
Posted by jimbo!, Sunday, 22 June 2014 4:00:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear LEGO,

Thank you I think, however if my intelligence is determined by how 'quiet' my last post was I will have to admit it was more a product of wanting to correct an obvious error before I headed out for the evening. I will suffer whatever drop in perceived IQ points this admission brings.

I'm actually not sure how much more there was to expand upon. You acknowledged Howard's reasons for implementing laws to tackle spree shootings, you conceded that shooting massacre type behaviour is predominately done by white males and you stated the obvious in detailing the amount of violent material our youth is exposed to. But your main contention did indeed centre around the following statement; “Firearm laws are a litmus paper test on how violent any society is.”

Your post was peppered with the word violent or violence probably best illustrated with this line from you; “the violent posters, the violent music, the violent movies, and the violent computer games”. So included in this proposition is that societies like Britain and Australia have become more violent.

You now have a problem. The per capita homicide rate in this country is at record lows. If you say we are actually more violent then the only thing keeping the resultant death rate from matching it must surely be the gun laws you have questioned.
http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/mr/21/figure02.png

“The homicide rate in Australia remains at an historical low (see Figure 2). In the most recent year (2009–10), the rate was calculated at 1.2 incidents per 100,000 and remains the lowest ever recorded in the NHMP. Since the AIC began collecting data for the NHMP in 1989–90, there has been an overall decrease of approximately 16 percent ... in the overall number of homicide incidents (see Figure 1).”
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/mr/21-40/mr21/04_homicide.html

But I fully agree with the concerns you have raised about violent media impacting our kids. I have often said to gun proponents ban all first person shooting games for those under 18 and I am prepared to have a conversation but not before.

Cont..
Posted by SteeleRedux, Sunday, 22 June 2014 5:51:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cont..

In 1997 14 year old Michael Carmeal took a pistol into a prayer meeting and with eight shots hit eight moving targets killing three. Five of eight were head shots. He had never fired a handgun in his life. Any police member would tell you this is incredible marksmanship. Michael was an avid user of FPS games.

I acknowledge that in a certain percentage of the population there will come a time in their lives when suicidal/revenge emotions come to the fore particularly in teenage white males. I also have little doubt that a proportion of those who end up committing school shootings may well have become productive members of society if they had managed to get through that troubled part of their lives.

We need to recognise that these emotionally immature and unstable teenagers in our society are to a degree desensitised to killing by the media they consume. A large proportion of the males in that group have have hundreds of hours honing lethal shooting skills. I think there is a moral duty for us as a society to limit access to weaponry that could see a tiny proportion of this group act on dark thoughts that could have tragic outcomes, both for them and their potential victims.

We live in a different world to the one we grew up in as children, one I would contend is less rather than more violent, but not without its challenges. Good governments respond to those challenges and to his credit Howard did just that when it was needed.

Finally to clarify a point you made, the Nottinghamshire police force only armed its general duty officers for patrols of two estates.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Sunday, 22 June 2014 6:04:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Jbowyer,

It always makes my day when gun lobbyists raise good old Switzerland as their poster child.

Let's go to the figures.

The UK has a rate of 0.04 gun related homicides per 100,000 citizens and a rate of 0.18 gun related suicides per year.

Switzerland has figures of 0.52 and 3.15 respectively.

So to crystallise the figures for you the Swiss are shooting each other at 13 times the rate of the Poms and topping themselves with guns at a staggering 17 times the UK rate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Australia's rates are .13 and .73 respectively, about a quarter that of the Swiss.

The main difference as you eluded is the far stricter gun laws here and in the UK. Thank you for making the case for them so eloquently.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Sunday, 22 June 2014 6:05:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steelredux OK but you wallys still are delighted when drug dealers have guns but law abiding citizens are stopped? You should be supporting the jailing of criminal gun carriers? No namby pamby magistrate offering bail or even dismissing charges as the young thug drew fire from cops pursuing him and fired in self defence? It was all dismissed on appeal but the magistrate was allowed to carry on. So Hells Angels and other pro criminals have your support whilst you get stuck into me?
You sicken me. If you were not some crim loving idiot you would have also asked for a nice round ten year sentence for any criminal either carrying a gun or with a person with a gun. The wheeze is to get the moll to carry the gun as your holster. but you are only concerned with your fellow citizens being disarmed are'nt you?
Posted by JBowyer, Sunday, 22 June 2014 6:37:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SteeleRedux, "You now have a problem. The per capita homicide rate in this country is at record lows. ....the only thing keeping the resultant death rate from matching it must surely be the gun laws you have questioned"

Again, the cause and effect science(sic) of Greens who would believe that the crowing of the rooster causes the sun to rise.

The numbers were dropping well before Howard and continued to drop in the same way after and beyond Howard.

Howard's 'gun control' obviously doesn't control illegal guns or the criminals who wield them, simply because criminals do not obey laws. Offenders are definitely NOT going to be seeking approval for a licence (wouldn't get one anyhow!), completing the mass of bureaucratic forms or going through the redundant Howard-instigated bureaucratic procedures.

Please detail exactly how the Howard 'gun control' actually affects wrong doers? Practically, specifically, what is there that could stop a Bryant or the drug traffickers who are responsible for almost all gun crime? Because no-one else can find anything in it.

Please advise how the Howard bureaucratic paraphernalia will deter and stop Jihardists returning from the Middle East from obtaining the guns and other weapons to continue their foul violence in Australia, to take a topical example.

The simple, incontrovertible fact is that the Howard bureaucratic redundancy only affects those who comply with it, namely law-abiding citizens and police. The police are required to constantly look over the shoulders of the law-abiding, which drains from the trained manpower they have to detect and arrest offenders, and those who can be trusted to do the right thing, the licensed farmers, target shooters and so on, are inconvenienced, treated as potential criminals and harassed.

No so the criminals though, police must be very careful not to risk transgressing their 'rights', lest the Leftist 'Progressives' and lunar 'Watermelon' Greens get upset and self-righteous about 'police harassment of criminals' and so on.

Howard muffed it by taking precipitative action against the advice of his senior ministers. It was $2billion of Taxpayers money blown first up and the offenders are still laughing.
Posted by onthebeach, Sunday, 22 June 2014 6:56:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Gun control' is a big lie, a confidence trick, because it doesn't impact on offenders at all.

'Gun control' is aimed at removing the rights of law-abiding citizens and ensuring they are defenceless. Gun bans for law-abiding citizens. Nothing to do with stopping criminals or threats.

With a weak defence force (no insult guys and gals, you are professionals but small in number), with no provisions in place like Switzerland's civil defence and with current events in the region, Australia will rue the day it ever disarmed its law-abiding citizens.
Posted by onthebeach, Sunday, 22 June 2014 7:07:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Steelredux

I am surprised that you are claiming that Australian society is not becoming more violent. I don't remember the western suburbs of Sydney resounding in gunfire almost every night in my youth, nor blazing banner headlines every Monday morning recounting the latest drive by shooting incidents involving certain ethnicities and their endless family feuds and honour killings.

Violent crime in Australia has been rising exponentially since the sixties, according to my source, "Rising Crime in Australia" by Lucy Sullivan, (Centre for Independent Studies). Armed robbery in particular has gone right out of control, while the almost unknown crime of kidnapping for ransom has also exploded. New terms have had to be invented to describe violent crimes now prevalent which Australia almost never experienced before. "Home invasions", "fossil banging" (attacking old people) "drive by shootings", "car jackings", "coward punches", and NSW has experienced Australia's first political assassination. Then there are new terms like "surf rage", "pool rage", "road rage", "roid rage", "referee rage" and even "hospital rage" where hospitals now employ security guards to protect staff. The NSW ambulance service changed it's uniform from a blue shirt to a white one because so many patients and their families were attacking them because they mistook ambulance personnel for police.

In June 2000, the Canberra based Australian Institute of Criminology said it was "puzzled" at the rise in violent crime (including murder) now being committed by juveniles. This paralleled the USA where juvenile gang homicide is that nations fastest growing crime statistic. Nobody know what to call the new phenomenon of kids killing kids. "Junior Rambo's'? "Psychokids", "Gunkids"?, "Schoolboy Terminators"?

In July 2000, (the same year that 70 Australian girls were gang raped by Muslim race hate rape packs in Sydney), the NSW Corrective Services released a press statement saying that NSW jails were now "full to capacity." Four new prisons had been built only recently as opposed to only one new university.

to be continued
Posted by LEGO, Sunday, 22 June 2014 7:27:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
continued

But prison numbers continued to swell to the extent that NSW Corrective services had to reopen two ancient prisons (Bowral, Parramatta), despite the widespread use of new non custodial sentences such as home detention and community service.

Your premise that Australia's homicide rate is not rising can be easily dismissed. According to the NSW Bureau for Crime Statistics "shoot with intent" incidences rose significantly between 1995 and 2000. This means that more people are being shot at and missed, and more people are being shot and are surviving, than ever before. The reason why people are surviving gunshot and knife wounds today, is because of such technological advances as mobile phones, well equipped ambulances staff by well trained paramedics who are video linked to surgeons, and advanced infection fighting drugs.

The point I am making is that Australian society is getting more violent but it has never been the mere easy availability of guns which has caused that. The severity of gun laws area litmus paper test of how sick your society is becoming. Continuing to tweak the gun laws will not achieve anything more because our politicians are aiming at the wrong target. However much we as a people enjoy the freedom to watch anything we like, do we really need media which endorses the joys of raping your mother? Bashing your girlfriend bitch? Taking illegal drugs? The US Army uses first peson shooter games to desensitize soldiers to the act of killing people. In Australia, we sell such products to kids as games.

This need not entail censorship. There are other ways to skin a rat. Product liability is a fact of life for every other manufacturer. Simply extending product liability to the entertainment media would put a damper on so much anti social media directed at children, now being sold to them by this vice industry. This is something which terrifies "artists" and their employers. It is also the reason why the artistic caste is now pushing for a US "Human Rights" agenda involving "the Right to Free Expression" to sanctify their greed and social irresponsibility
Posted by LEGO, Sunday, 22 June 2014 7:31:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>It always makes my day when gun lobbyists raise good old Switzerland as their poster child.

Let's go to the figures.

The UK has a rate of 0.04 gun related homicides per 100,000 citizens and a rate of 0.18 gun related suicides per year.

Switzerland has figures of 0.52 and 3.15 respectively.

So to crystallise the figures for you the Swiss are shooting each other at 13 times the rate of the Poms and topping themselves with guns at a staggering 17 times the UK rate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Australia's rates are .13 and .73 respectively, about a quarter that of the Swiss.<<

blah blah blah....

*again* we see the typical tactics of the psycho gun-grabbers .....
having been rebutted, they then wait a while and return with the same BS 'arguments'....

OK...

the UK & 0zz stats are BOGUS.....
http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.2/gun-facts-6-2-screen.pdf ;

the UK stats are *totally* bogus.....because, if you read the 'pdf', you'll find that UK Home Office *only* reports violent crimes *upon conviction*.....*NOT* upon commission....so....IOW: the stats are prblby 'out' by @ least a coupla orders of magnitude......try multiplying by 100....you might get a better idea....

as i'v stated previously, 0zz stats can't be relied upon *either* because gov.au has a gun-grabbing agenda to push....
*only* peer-reviewed studies are acceptable...so.....*cite* those or STFU....k?
(i cite the McPhearden/Baker and the Saurdi/Lee studies as *proof* of the total ineffectiveness of Howard's BS gun laws!)

oh....BTW....a few yrs back, an Assitant Commissioner of VicPol (Sir Ken Jones) actually *resigned* in protest over violent crime stats being 'down-played'....that was during Overland's tenure as Chief Cmmsnr......
Posted by jimbo!, Sunday, 22 June 2014 7:51:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
re: "LEGO"

any-one who says that 0zz society is not becoming *more* violent...in fact, since Howard's gun grab, *much* more violent has, quite frankly, got their head up their rear orifices!

a simple !google! search will quickly establish that there has been and is *an ALARMING* increase in armed, violent home invasions....

http://tinyurl.com/0zz-hm-invsns-ggl-rslts;

and....of course, as predicted by the pretty much irrefutable academic studies of the likes of Prssfr John R Lott of the US, once the average punter is disarmed, the crims, the thugs, the hoons and the tyrants become more and more *emboldened*.....as they use *their* firearms, acquired from their crim' mates, to terrorise the general populace!

http://tinyurl.com/hm-invsn-0zz-101 ;
Posted by jimbo!, Sunday, 22 June 2014 8:05:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear LEGO,

You claim a certain expertise in debating thus I am a little surprised you would quote research from over 2 decades ago to support your contention that violence is increasing in Australia.

Lucy Sullivan's paper from which you cite as your primary source was published in 1997 but to make matters worse its figures look at crime only until 1993.

You do provide other material but even that suffers from lack of currency being well over a decade old.

If you go to the Australian Bureau of Statistics web site you will find far more current information with a comparison of the last 5 years. Since you have questioned the validity of homicide rates as a measure of violence our only recourse is to look directly at both physical and sexual assault rates across the nation.

There is further data on crimes like robbery on the person, threatening assault etc but as these two are directly linked to violence I am happy to make my case with them.

Physical Assault Australia

2008-09 527,400 cases reported Rate 3.1
2012-13 498,000 cases reported Rate 2.7

Sexual Assault Australia

2008-09 52,500 cases reported Rate 0.3
2012-13 40,700 cases reported Rate 0.2

The more recent and thus relevant BOSCAR data by the NSW Bureau for Crime Statistics (whom you referenced) show a spike in violent crime occurring within a few years of Howard's gun laws at nearly 115 per 100,000 people then a marked decline ever since. It currently sits at around 90 per 100,000 people seasonally adjusted.

That is my evidence which I can expand on if required. From this I repeat the contention that the trend in violent crimes in Australia is indeed downward.

If you are still intent on contending otherwise I invite you to now make that case.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Sunday, 22 June 2014 10:57:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Deleted for abuse.]
Posted by jimbo!, Monday, 23 June 2014 6:18:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Steelredux.

My crime figures are not just two decades old, they recount the rise in crime in Australia from the turn of the century to 1993. The graphs of different types of crime within "Rising Crime in Australia", show a very slow rise in almost every type of crime throughout the 20th century, except homicide and robbery. Homicide stayed steady while robbery actually fell during the 1930's. Interestingly, Australians were less inclined to rob others during The Great Depression when our people were the poorest.

Crime rates began to accelerate in the mid sixties, and rose again sharply during the 1980's when they were going almost straight up. If there has been any reduction from what are historically high rates of criminal behaviour, that hardly equates to Australian society becoming safer.

I actually laughed when you submitted that rape in Australia had declined from 52,000 reported incidences to 40,700. In 1923, there were only 13 reported rapes or even attempted rapes in the whole Commonwealth of Australia. Between 1963 and 1972, reported rapes rose 1400%. I think we can conclude that Australian women are a lot less safe today than in 1923, or even 1963.

Any reductions in crime rates has nothing to do with firearm availability. The major factors are technology, and increased police powers resulting from public demands that politicians get tough on crime. One major advance in technology since the 1980's is DNA testing, which now joins photography and fingerprinting as a major crime fighting tool. The other, is that security cameras are everywhere.

So too, civil liberties have been constrained to give police increased crime fighting abilities. Police may now stop and search pedestrians, and even conduct car searches without a warrant. Even houses can be searched without warrants in certain situations. In addition, both police and the security police have enhanced powers of telephone tapping as well as Email intercept powers. Such power were instrumental in foiling two mass murder plots by Muslim "Australians", the planned bombing of the Victorian MCG, and the plot to shoot Australian soldiers at Holsworthy Army base in Sydney
Posted by LEGO, Monday, 23 June 2014 7:03:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Deleted for abuse.]
Posted by jimbo!, Monday, 23 June 2014 7:43:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear LEGO,

Lol.

You do know there was a pretty simple premise put by me, that Australia was becoming less violent not more as you have asserted. And no I was not judging it against 1923.

I'm afraid if you can not challenge the fact that homicide rates are down, that physical assaults rates are down, that sexual assaults are are down then it really doesn't matter if every 10th Australian is a potential serial killer you have to concede for the average citizen Australia is becoming less not more violent and the chances of them suffering a criminal act of violence is diminishing. This really isn't a big ask.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Monday, 23 June 2014 8:18:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sir! Jimbo's being naughty again!
Posted by JBowyer, Monday, 23 June 2014 8:26:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
More people in the USA are killed by automobiles than guns. If gun ownership is banned,so should car ownership. A car driven at 100 km per hr can kill more people than a gun. It has far more potential energy but very few people use it this way.

Do we then ban kitchen knives, baseball bats, nail guns, household poisons and garden tools? They can all kill.
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 23 June 2014 9:03:11 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said David. I support your views 100%.
Posted by JustGiveMeALLTheFacts, Tuesday, 24 June 2014 10:15:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As any student of statistical analysis will tell you, Steelredux, the smaller the sample, the less accurate the conclusions. Your premise, is that because some types of violent crime has declined in the past ten years, then Australia must be becoming a safer society. And by inference, the gun buyback worked.

Sorry, that is wrong for many reasons. If the gun buyback worked, why is it necessary for NSW to AGAIN make it's gun laws more onerous? They did not do it because NSW was safer, it was because despite the gun buyback, crimes involving firearms were getting worse and the public was demanding that the government do something.

The statistics in "Rising Crime in Australia" covered a period of almost a hundred years, not ten. It clearly showed, that for most of this century, Australia once had very lenient gun laws and very little violent crime. From 13 rapes and attempted rapes in 1923 to 40,000 today, and you claim that Australian society is getting less violent because we topped at 53,000 p.a. rapes before things improved?

The figures for homicides have decreased for the three reasons I have already given. And I will add a fourth. More people are being shot and stabbed today, but more people are recovering because of the increasing familiarity of emergency room personnel in dealing with these types of injuries. Crime is at levels undreamed of in our grandparents time, but you think that nothing is wrong because some types of violent crime hit the roof and bounced? Our jails are full and getting fuller. So many NSW prisoners are now on remand that special laws allowing bail for even serious offences like murder have been instituted to alleviate the overcrowding.
Posted by LEGO, Tuesday, 24 June 2014 6:53:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear LEGO,

With the greatest respect you were the one tying gun laws with violent crime not I and this was the quote you offered in support;

"No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less than when there were no controls of any sort. Half a century of strict controls on pistols has ended, perversely, with a far greater use of this class of weapon in crime, than ever before."

All I am contending is that violent crime or even crime in general is on the whole declining.

Here are figures for the rate of criminal incidents recorded by NSW Police per 100,000 population by year and offence type

Murder – peaked in 1999 at 2.0 now 1.1

Assault - peaked in 2002 at 1068.4 now 887.8

Robbery without a weapon - peaked in 2001 at 115.6 now 33.5

Robbery with a firearm - peaked in 1997 at 22.3 now 4.5

Robbery with a weapon not a firearm - peaked in 1998 at 80.3 now 19.2

Breaking and entering a dwelling - peaked in 1998 at 1340.4 now 482.6

You may well look at the figures and still conclude that, despite what they show, in your opinion society is getting more violent. That is perfectly acceptable. It may not be supported by the evidence but after all it is an opinion. What I don't think is as acceptable is finding an excuse to dismiss each statistic for a myriad of different reasons and try and tell me that white is black.

In the end I think we have agreed more than we have disagreed perhaps with different take away messages which is fine. Howard's gun laws did what they were designed to do. Can the result be tortured by either side to further their agendas? Of course. But I for one would not want to see them repealed or diminished in any fashion.

I have appreciated the reasoned exploration of the issue.

I will leave you with some light relief.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2014/06/19/16/36/pastafarian-guy-albon-wears-colander-in-gun-licence-photo
Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 24 June 2014 10:59:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SteeleRedux,

You have shown no familiarity at all, not even a superficial understanding of firearms regulations let alone being able to compare and contrast conditions pre- and post-Howard.

You are clueless about cause and effect and simply broken record the same stupefyingly irrelevant bumpf you got from somewhere. Then you have the gall, and the front of a Sydney double decker bus, to turn around and declare your case proven! How?

What is it? Do you actually believe that stuff? Do you hope to bluff it out because few can be bothered setting the record straight if they have to descend to your level?

This is what is wrong with internet forums and social sites, where the ill-informed and narcissists pose as 'experts', and few ordinary, sensible, knowledgeable, law-abiding, self-disciplined citizens would waste their time posting.

The problem is that a lie often repeated might be believed as fact.

However Howard's gun control is easily and convincingly shown to be a bureaucratic nightmare of paperwork and redundancy that inconveniences police, putting them behind desks and wasting their time monitoring respectable citizens, and sledges and even wars against the law-abiding safe citizens who get licences. Way to win over the known good citizens? Absolutely not!

Now, what about you invoke your very best Otto impersonation (A Fish Called Wanda) and try to answer the very simple questions that you are trying to ignore? Here you go and open to all comers of course:

(1) Please detail exactly how the Howard 'gun control' actually affects wrong doers? Practically, specifically, what is there that could stop a Bryant or the drug traffickers who are responsible for almost all gun crime? Because no-one else can find anything in it.

(2) Please advise how the Howard bureaucratic paraphernalia will deter and stop Jihardists returning from the Middle East from obtaining the guns and other weapons to continue their foul violence in Australia, to take a topical example.
Posted by onthebeach, Wednesday, 25 June 2014 1:37:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some of those posting here obviously haven't done some checking suggested in an earlier post I made. Try Googling eg "Port Arthur Massacre Coverup" and study material that comes up. Those who have realise that the massacre was planned by anti gun psychopaths to drum up public support for tough gun laws. Also that MARTIN BRYANT WAS NOT THE GUNMAN. He was selected and set up to take the blame. Was sentenced after initial "trial by media" which amounted to contempt of court and eventually was persuaded to plead guilty after being held in illegal solitary confinement - obviously under considerable duress for six months. Any attempt to convict him against a proper defence would obviously have been thrown out of court because of lack of evidence proving he was the gunman and a lot indicating it was someone else.

Hopefully as the official story is exposed as false in important respects, Martin Bryant will be granted a proper trial and a genuine enquiry will be held into the whole affair. Remember how John Howard has claimed his greatest achievement was getting his gun laws through. I am sure most who disapprove of them would appreciate if proper processes of the law could be applied against him. Seems to me that Mr Howard should be charged with being an accessory after the fact regarding Port Arthur murders and perverting the course of justice by his actions to cover up the truth.
Posted by mox, Wednesday, 25 June 2014 7:44:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Steelredux.

Apologies for the tardy response but I have been working 56 hour weeks and sometimes I am just too tired to indulge my favourite pastime.

The quote that you submitted was not mine, it was from Chief Inspector, Colin Greenwood commenting upon how serious gun crime involving handguns in Britain had increased significantly since the private ownership of handguns in Britain was banned.

Visiting the AIC, the figures I obtained did not entirely validate the figures that you submitted that indicated a general decline in crime in all categories.

Homicides have decreased, for reasons that I have already explained, which hardly constitute Australia "becoming safer." Sadly, the AIC did not have any figures on "shoot with intent" to discover if more people were being shot (or shot at) than ever before.

Assaults increased from 114,156 (1996) to 171,083 (2010)

Sexual assaults increased from 14,542 (1996) to 17,797 (2010)

Kidnapping increased from 478 (1996) to 603 (2010)

Robberies have declined 16,732 (1996) to (14,582.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/cfi/161-180/cfi177.html

Attempted murder with a knife increased from 33 (2001) to 36.9 (2009)

Here is the Australian Institute of Criminology in 2008 stating that assaults and sexual assaults have increased 40% and homicides had decreased by only 9%. A 9% reduction in the homicide rate can be considered a normal fluctuation, in the same way that the 35 people shot dead by Martin Bryant at Port Arthur increased the homicide rate on that particular year. http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/341-360/tandi359/view%20paper.html

Australians are not usually statisticians or mathematicians. But anyone with a high school education can understand that any statistic can be greatly distorted if only a small sample is used to make assumptions about any subject. You are claiming that Australia is a safer place based upon figures, (some of which are disputed by me) which cover only a (roughly) ten year period to the present day. My figures are more accurate because they cover almost a hundred years of ever steepening crime statistics which clearly indicate that whatever reductions in our historically high levels of crime have recently occurred, the general trend is still an upward curve

continued
Posted by LEGO, Thursday, 26 June 2014 7:45:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Periodic fluctuations in the homicide rate are the norm, not the exception. You have to examine the figures over a long time to average them out and arrive at a general rate. According to all the data I have read when reading about Australia's homicide rate, the figure 1.8 per 100,000 seems to be the one most commonly quoted. And it has that figure has remained steady for most of the century, for reasons I have already explained. The homicide rate fell, along with every other violent crime rate, during the war years, and rose when the war was over. That did not mean that Australian society had somehow become intrinsically less violent, and then became intrinsically more violent. It was because of a specific and easily understood reason. Most violent crime is committed by young men, and most young men were at the front or subject to military regulation.

That is why when assessing statistics, the figures should be drawn from as large a base sample as possible, and where anomalies can be identified and the reasons for them assessed. Taking a small sample and making inferences based upon a narrow band of facts is statistically insignificant.
Posted by LEGO, Thursday, 26 June 2014 7:47:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 18
  7. 19
  8. 20
  9. All

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