Dear Julian,

<<Howard disarmed all owners of many types of gun simultaneously>>

He tried... but saying "Poof" doesn't make all guns vanish. No hardened criminal volunteered their weapon(s), nor would a Muslim Jihadist who is 72 times happy to die for their cause. Meanwhile, good honest people, and only those, did surrender their guns.

<<I would find owning a gun little comfort>>

And having been a victim of conscription in the past, I would refuse to touch a gun ever again even if I was offered one, even if I was ordered to have one. But hey, I can say this only because this is an anonymous forum, so no criminal/Jihadist can take advantage of my above statement. Nobody would ever be required to have a gun - all you need is that criminals BELIEVE that you may have a gun! Though I won't touch a real gun, I have no problems about spreading [false] rumours as if I have a hidden stack of machine-guns at home.

Imperator,

"s Mise, I am an innocent person and don’t want criminals armed by lax gun laws to shoot me. I would find owning a gun little comfort as the criminal, being in nature the aggressor, would have the drop on me. And on you too. Even Morgan and Virgil Earp were gunned down when the bad guys got the drop on them."

I rather think that you speak of things of which you know little, especially firearms and their use.
As for a criminal having the drop on me, I'm in my 81st year and I can still draw a pistol and fire before a person with a cocked gun can pull the trigger.
You are also a bit low on history, Virgil Earp died from pneumonia on 19th October 1905 when he was 62.
Morgan Earp was murdered on the 18th March 1882 by a shot through the window of a room while he was playing billiards.
No one had the drop on him.

I would suggest that you read a little history or just use Google.

Virgil Earp was maimed in December 1881 by gunnies concealed in an upstairs window. Their Slave Owners’ Amendment guns were loaded, aimed and fired while Earp’s weapon was still holstered, useless. The bad guys had the drop on him. Always the way.

Less than a year later Morgan Earp was shot dead by unseen gunnies from outside a window as he played billiards. His gun? Forget it. They had the drop on him and the Slave Owners’ Amendment did the rest.

If gun-armed Moslems looking for their blessing from Allah burst in Is Mise as he slept he could always throw his sheets off, go get his gun, load, cock and fire it. He could count the flying pigs as he died.

Lucky the vermin who stabbed the two cops hadn’t had a gun. Thank you John Howard – the only good thing you ever did for Australia.

Imperator,

"To get the drop" in firearm terms means to have one's gun pointed at the other fellow so that he daren't risk an attempt to get his own weapon.

The Earps were ambushed which is an entirely different thing.

Indeed if armed men broke into my home there is little that I could do because I am a law-abiding citizen and my guns are all locked away and their ammunition is locked in a separate container, bolted to the floor.

Thanks to John Howard I am not allowed anything for self defence or for the defence of my family. The same John Howard had a bullet proof vest (denied to ordinary citizens) and had armed guards to protect him, now that says something, 'coward' comes to mind.
If Howard's gun laws stopped the recent Muslim assailant in Melbourne from having a gun why do the same laws not stop Muslim criminals and other criminals in Sydney from getting illegal guns?

I await you illuminating reply.

EmperorJulian
So you agree with predators enslaving people and shooting them to enforce obedience, it's just that you believe it's fine if the predators are the state?

You believe, don't you, that there should be no limit on their power but what they themselves decree - in other words, you support the worst kind of predation and exploitation.

You agree that it's okay for the state to threaten or attack people in its unilteral discretion, don't you?

But if not, then by what criterion do you decide the limits of statist power, if not by reference to limits decided by the state. And how do you avoid self-contradiction with your double standard?

In answer to Is Mise’ repeated question about what constraint I would put on illegal possession of guns by criminals, again the answer is in my Paragraph 2 at 5:33:39 PM September 25 . The state can make things illegal without maximum effect, but to actually STOP something it must make the price totally prohibitive. Howard did well but was unable to go far enough. Having the drop on someone means being in a position to blow him away before he can defend himself , and in a community awash with guns the armed aggressor will always have the drop.

In answer to JKJ the state is constrained by laws empowering the community to constrain it. That does not apply to any other predators or potential predators. Hence standards applicable to state powers do not apply to powers of every Tom, Dick or Harry. JKJ’s “you believe” and “you agree” are invented straw men. As an infidel I have more to fear from the Moslem on the lookout for an infidel to kill than from the cops tasked with stopping him. Naturally I’m well aware that outfits like ASIO have a self-serving agenda of their own and that Moslems have been imported willy-nilly to threaten infidels and thus serve for the securocrats an original purpose of importing other enemies of liberty. We need the state but must always remember that it can go ape. The price of liberty etc.