Part of me wants to agree with you, but then I think of the Americans using exactly that same argument for the right to carry guns.

The numbers of Americans killed by guns is horrendous and even so called non lethal means of self defence can kill.

Spraying a gunman with pepper spray or mace, will not guarantee your safety.

So what would happen if we abolished all the laws on the sale and carrying of guns and other weapons?

Serious criminals probably already have access to restricted weapons. The main effect, I think, would be a proliferation of such weapons in the general community with related increased access by lower level criminals and delinquents. In my judgement there is likely to be an increase (not a decrease) in innocent lives lost.

There is a case for allowing personal use of mace and pepper spray on the part of vulnerable members of the community. I see no case for general access to body armour or Tasers.

I can't see the average civilian wearing body armour for protection, though it has a role in the case of police or security guards. The main improper use of body armour, that comes to mind, was by offenders in the infamous North Hollywood shootout ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout).

I recently dealt with some clients who live in a major US city. They commented that nearly 150 people were killed by firearm in their city in the past year, yet the area they live in is completely free of such crime.

I asked whether they knew what was causing these people to be shot and the immediate answer was "drug crime and gangs".

Many US states will issue a permit for people to carry firearms for personal protection. To be issued such a permit a person needs to complete a course of training and be approved by their relevant authority. Perhaps counter to the expectations of local politicians and media, where states have pursued this action, deaths involving firearms have reduced, in some cases considerably.

Contrary to the common perception that "america has no gun laws", the city my clients live in has among the most restrictive laws in the US for personal ownership and use of firearms, yet like the other jurisdictions famous for having similar restrictions has such a high rate of firearm deaths. I was surprised to find that they knew of no examples of people outside the illicit drug trade was involved in any firearm deaths.

I presume their information may be incomplete, but anecdotally it suggests there may be some validity in further analysis of exactly who is being killed by firearms in the US and whether there is a match to what is happening in parts of Australia. IE gun crime is a symptom of other problems, rather than a disease in itself.

Do we really want to be sitting in a restaurant or café and wondering how many of the other clientele are packing heat?

Personally as an ex-pat American, I feel a lot safer in Australia. Arming everyone is not the answer. There are always crazy people who will get their hands on a gun if they are determined; there is no need to make it easier.

I'm not sure of the number but there have been quite a few road rage incidents involving guns in the USA. Given the number of road rage incidents here in Australia, we are fortunate those involved were not armed.

Time for a sober, factual assessment,

Agenda: Monis was never licensed
http://www.skynews.com.au/video/program_agenda/2014/12/18/agenda-monis-was--never-licensed-.html

The Mild colonial boy: It is a real treat to read factual data, rather than the unsubstantiated ideas of the anti gun brigade!

As things stand, the criminals/crazies are the only one able to obtain unrestricted access to their choice of firearms. Brand new, wrapped in grease paper and still in the box!
And never seen customs let alone a legal dealer!

Factually, some very dangerous people are able to get their hands on lethal weapons with impunity, and use them when and where they choose!

Take a look around any crowded cafe right now, with the laws as they stand, and understand the man smiling at the waiter, may well be armed for bear. How would anyone know? Well?

As the wild colonial boy points out, most of the US killings are gang on gang member, or armed clashes between drug dealers and the like!

Decriminalizing most of that trade, and allowing legal and very controlled drug outlets, would make most of the drug related violence just go away.

The war on terror is picking up, and we are not safe on our own streets!
Even with the laws changed, there'd be no compulsion to carry a firearm.
However, nobody has the right to prevent other law abiding citizens from exercising a right to protect themselves.

The statistical evidence shows, we are in no more danger from an armed law abiding citizenry, than police forces; who present around the world, with similar gun crime numbers, or gun related suicide.

As usual, the anti gun lobby are the most vociferous when it comes to euthanasia, but withhold the most potent means of achieving that end!

I suppose its okay to top yourself, always providing there's no unsightly mess?
An interesting juxtaposition!

As the cafe killings exposed, we are just ducks in a barrels!

Politicians and their new gun laws haven't made any of us safer!
They have however, handed our streets to the criminals and the crazies!

They did what They could to outlaw guns, now it's mostly outlaws, who have the guns!
Rhrosty.

Bren,

"I can't see the average civilian wearing body armour for protection, though it has a role in the case of police or security guards. The main improper use of body armour, that comes to mind, was by offenders in the infamous North Hollywood shootout."

Civilians in this country are, in a variety of circumstances, required by law to wear body armour.
Cycle helmets (both push and motor) safety helmets in various work places.
Shin guards in many sports as well as protective head and groin area protectors(possibly not required by law but required by sports administrators).
Heavy protective clothing in some industries often heavy enough to stop a bullet.
The heavy protective gear worn by people blasting barnacles from ships hulls will stop .22 long rifle rounds (personal experiment).
Work boots with steel toecaps are also often required by law.

Why then cannot a service station attendant (a vulnerable job as some have been shot dead) have protective clothing that is designed to stop a bullet.

If one possesses a Kevlar jacket for the purpose of defence then one has committed an offence yet if one possesses a Kevlar jacket because the outer layer is a fashion statement, then that is lawful.

It would seem that the ban on body armour only extends to the most vulnerable parts of the body being unprotected and as a protection for police who may have to face criminals wearing such armour, just as firearms controls stop criminals from having firearms so controls on body armour will stop criminals from getting it!!

John Howard wore body armour so why shouldn't any other citizen have equal protection?

I lived during a time when schoolboy cadets like myself went to school on the bus with Lee Enfield .303 military rifles on our shoulders, and nobody batted an eyelid. Firearm licenses did not exist, and the legal age for purchasing a firearm was 16. Most suburban hairdressers sold firearms as a sideline, and department stores sold firearms alongside fishing rods in the "sports" departments. Ammunition could be obtained from corner stores and petrol stations, while firearms could be rented from gun shops. Firearms were routinely sold through newspaper adds.

Yet there were no school shootings, no massacres, and Bankstown and Punchbowl did not resound with gunshots from the nightly round of drive by killings. Kids did not kill kids.

The mere presence of guns does not cause gun crime. If it did, then every society that had a lot of guns would have a lot of crime. This is not true. There is a wide divergence in the degree of violent behaviour between racial and cultural groups. Those cultures which respect the law and who consider inter group violence to be unacceptable, have very low rates of violent crime, regardless of the availability of firearms. Those cultures which have no regard for the law, and who instead value a macho mentality complete with medieval concepts of male honour, will have high rates of personnel violence, regardless of whether firearms are present or not.

The homicide rate for the US is five times that of Australia. But if all of the homicides involving firearms were removed from the statistics, the USA 's homicide rate would still be double Australia's. Clearly, something other than firearms is the problem. Mexico's homicide rate is 15 times that of Australia's, even though the possession of firearms is totally banned. It is not surprising that that most US homicides involving firearms are within the precincts of black and Hispanic ghettoes.

Ethnicity and cultural affiliation is more an indicator of a propensity to violence than the presence of firearms. But we can't mention that, because it is illegal in Australia under 18C to tell the truth.

Chief Flynn (of Milwaukee) after Nov. 6 police commission meeting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7MAO7McNKE

In Just 35 Years, 232,000 U.S. Blacks Killed by Other Blacks
http://americanfreepress.net/?p=21594

I look at this way LEGO.

If, at the present time, Australia is not plagued with the gun-related crimes that America has, especially at schools, then why would we want to allow our citizens to arm themselves like the American do?

From what I can recall, haven't most of the school based homicides in the USA in recent years been perpetrated by young white men? Certainly they wouldn't have been able to kill so many of their class mates at once if their constitution didn't allow for the 'right to bear arms'.

Australia doesn't need the 'shoot-em-up' attitude and lifestyle of the Yanks.
Anyone who thinks that life sounds good should move there....

Suseonline,

What the US government statistics consistently show is that the 'gun culture' is a furphy, a diversion, where violence and homicide are concerned.

It is another culture, a human culture, that is at fault. See the link provided by Jay Of Melbourne,viz.,
"In Just 35 Years, 232,000 U.S. Blacks Killed by Other Blacks"
http://americanfreepress.net/?p=21594

Logically you should be challenging the federal government to ensure that immigration policies do not introduce similar risks to Australia.

LEGO...

In my experience that your last paragraph is perfectly correct. '...Ethnicity and cultural affiliations is more of an indicator of a propensity to violence, rather then the presence of firearms...' ! And S.18c or not, it's the bloody truth !

Until ALL our politicians understand this 'fact' we'll still be caught in this political 'paralysis' of indecision ? And with further strengthening of our existing F/A laws, which will do precisely NOTHING other than by placing a further unfair impost on legitimate F/A's users.

Don't you think it's about time, all you morally corrupt, lazy politicians did your damn jobs, and address the root cause of this F/A violence. Better still, just ask the average working detective, they'll tell you quick smart, that's providing your delicate little sensibilities can assimilate it ! Remember, the voting public are getting rather sick of all this violence, and we're watching you as the next election approaches ?

Suse,
The spectacular, mass murders like Columbine get the most attention but less than 500 people have been killed in mass casualty attacks on schools in the U.S. School shootings happen at the rate of about one a week in the U.S, the perpetrators are mostly black and if the injuries inflicted are not fatal or if the gun is produced and discharged without wounding anyone we just don't hear about it.
Google the names Trey Foster, Michael McNabb,Stephen Gilbert, J'Morian Bell, Quintarius Mabry, to name just a handful.
Most school shootings like most other shootings in the U.S are black on black and related to gang activity and the drug trade.

Yes Lego, our cadets had rifle range shooting a sessions about 5 times a year, always on a Saturday. Our cadet parade day was Thursday. We issued our cadets with WW11 vintage 303s on Thursday afternoons, to take home, & they were returned mostly on Monday mornings. I say mostly as a few would always forget them, after all they were nothing special, just another gun.

I became a CUO, [cadet officer] at 15, & was instructing & overseeing a platoon of 30 cadets on the range at that age. We had 3 platoons & only one teacher officer overseeing the lot. Perhaps we grew up quicker than todays kids.

Can you imagine how we would go today, if Kokoda were to happen today? We only held the Japs back then because most Oz boys were experienced rifle shots. Today most officer cadets, doing their introductory course before going to Duntroon have no idea of handling a weapon.

My son, who was instructing these people told us it was hard to get them to keep their eyes open, when the gun went "BANG". Oh, & he said the girls were even worse.

I don't think it matters much what subs we might buy, the crew will have their eyes shut if they ever have to shoot anything.

LOL Has been,

I was also a school cadet and often spent my summers roaming the hills and reducing the rabbit population around my grand mothers place.

I had gun safety drilled into me by my father who bought me an air rifle at the age of 12.

We carried our rifles to and from school

To Susieonline.

The most significant factor in the degree of violent criminal behaviour in any society is the acceptance of cultural values which endorse violence within that society. Since the late 60's, western entertainment media has gone from reinforcing pro social values to glamourising violent criminal behaviour and drug abuse. This has occurred during a time of unprecedented social change where children are becoming more divorced from parental supervision. The primary socialising factor in advanced societies is the family, and this institution is now under threat from a variety of sources. Around one third of families today are single parent households, usually a woman doing a heroic job juggling full or part time work while trying to raise "latch key" children.

It is these poorly socialised children missing a dad and who's only window to the world is a TV set, who are most at risk from accepting the anti social messages being constantly directed at them by media executives who's only concern is their quarterly balance sheet.

Heart throb Leonardo Di Caprio starred in a movie (Basketball Diaries) in which he plays a student who "dreams" of walking into his classroom in a long black leather coat and a shotgun, then starts shooting his teachers and fellow students. Within months, young students in the USA emulated his behaviour and started walking into schools in long leather coats with guns.

If the images and messages transmitted by the media do not influence behaviour, then you must agree that there is nothing wrong with the cigarette and alcohol industries putting advertisements in children's magazines. But if you can understand that the media can affect people's behaviour, then you should be able to make the connection that exposing impressionable minors to images glamourising violence, criminality, revenge behaviour, and drug abuse, is not a smart thing to do.

Our culture is changing to one accepting of violence because we are allowing our entertainment media to manipulate our cultural values.

Oh I don't know about the media being totally at fault, or the 'fatherless' kiddies LEGO.

Humans have done a good job being violent long before the media was as prolific as it is today, and the many fatherless households after the two very violent World Wars did not produce an increase in community violence did it?

I don't think we can blame human violence on any one factor.....it is just in some humans nature to be violent.

"If the images and messages transmitted by the media do not influence behaviour, then you must agree that there is nothing wrong with the cigarette and alcohol industries putting advertisements in children's magazines. But if you can understand that the media can affect people's behaviour, then you should be able to make the connection that exposing impressionable minors to images glamourising violence, criminality, revenge behaviour, and drug abuse, is not a smart thing to do.

Our culture is changing to one accepting of violence because we are allowing our entertainment media to manipulate our cultural values."

Well said LEGO, I agree 100%. The dumbing down of society through a poor education system is another factor. Young people seem to not be able to apply any critical analysis of the plots and probabilities of the new breed of movies and TV shows (mostly American in origin). They just blindly accept the hero can kill 20 - 30 bad guys without remorse, leap like superman, fight nearly to the death without losing any teeth, throw another man through a brick wall and drive like the best stuntman in the world. It takes being stupid to watch most of the American made action movies which seem to be getting worse as computer generated special effects get better.

There has to be an associated desensitisation from watching that crap and playing similar video games.

Suse, the violence is increasing and there is more to this than it seems you are willing to accept.

<Suse, the violence is increasing and there is more to this than it seems you are willing to
< accept.
Posted by ConservativeHippie, Wednesday, 24 December 2014 7:30:21 PM

Is the level of violence really increasing? or is it being reported more often?

Another thing is the language used, using emotive adjectives. One only needed to the listen to some of the commentators reporting in the Martin place siege and the type of language that they used.

"The look of terror on their faces" ect.

You say youd carried rifles to and from your school Wolly b I don't believe you. You would not be allowed to have a rifle in school what a silly thing to say carrying a gun at school a joke of course? What are cadets at school anyway other than playing soldiers or something? But not have a real gun while at school anyway.

LEGO, Conservativehippie,
Studies over the last 40 years have consistently shown that movies, TV, books and video games have no effect on levels of violence in a society nor do they drive people to commit criminal acts.
Canada and Australia have had the same Jewish TV shows and movies as the U.S for 60 years and both have nowhere near the levels of violent crime as the U.S.
There's no mystery and no need for complex theories about culture,it's very simple, the answer is RACE,RACE and RACE.
Areas like Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine,Idaho and so forth, the areas which are still overwhelmingly White have similar rates of violent crime to Australia, New Zealand and Canada, around 7 per 100,000.
Areas like Detroit, Newark, St Louis and New Orleans have rates of violent crime of 20 per 100,000 and more, which puts them somewhere in line with Brazil, Haiti or Jamaica.
Negroes are violent by nature, their behaviour is unpredictable, they lack the intelligence to work through confrontations and bring them to a peaceful conclusion and no matter how much Whites or the more intelligent Blacks try to project their own logical, rational mindset onto them there's no way they can be safe living among them.
Take away Black crime from the U.S statistics and the "gun problem" disappears, if Obama is serious about reducing the murder rate he needs to hire some Israeli military advisors, seal off the ghettos and go house to house IDF style disarming every Black person in the country.

Wolly,
You're correct, the rates of violent crime have been declining in developed countries since the early 1990's,by far the worst period for the U.S was the 1980's and the "cocaine wars" and even though the rates of crime among Negroes have also fallen sharply they are a stubborn hold over from that era.
I think this is the anachronistic image that the hoplophobes still hang onto, but their type still hasn't gotten over the fact that Stalin won and Trotsky lost so anachronistic ideals and misinterpretation of the facts is all they know.
If anything the saturation of advanced societies

Overall, I am in full agreement with the author. (This is one issue on which I depart the political left/centre left and parachute over into traditional right-wing territory.)

One factor I would add to the debate is that there is a worrying correlation between the global push to disarm civilian populations through tighter gun control laws, and the corresponding global push to militarise law enforcement and surveillance.

I don’t mean to go all Tea Party on everyone … but it IS worth noting.

Rhrosty

‘As usual, the anti gun lobby are the most vociferous when it comes to euthanasia, but withhold the most potent means of achieving that end!’

Yes, I’ve often noticed that paradox too. And I’m totally with you in that the proliferation of gun crime goes hand in hand with the war on drugs.

Jay

I don’t doubt your argument regarding gun violence and black populations. But you are leaving out the two other major distinguishing factors linking race to gun violence – poverty and discrimination

LEGO

‘Those cultures which have no regard for the law, and who instead value a macho mentality complete with medieval concepts of male honour, will have high rates of personnel violence, regardless of whether firearms are present or not.’

My thoughts exactly. Only I’m SO glad you said it … not me (as I'd simply be dismissed as a man-hater).

Suse

‘… many fatherless households after the two very violent World Wars did not produce an increase in community violence did it?’

True. I'd also add that, up until about the 1960s, a boy raised by a single mother was deemed to be in danger of growing up effeminate.

Since the 1970s, this attitude has made a 180-degree turn. Now the wisdom deems that a boy raised by a single mother is in danger of growing into a violent hood.

Women just can’t win.

**

And as a final word … Merry Christmas everyone!

Killarney "I don’t doubt your argument regarding gun violence and black populations. But you are leaving out the two other major distinguishing factors linking race to gun violence – poverty and discrimination."

Exactly, Jay of Melbourne. Surely working on these two causes of discontent amongst many African Americans would go a long way to lessen the violent tendencies,
as opposed to your rather draconian method of "... if Obama is serious about reducing the murder rate he needs to hire some Israeli military advisors, seal off the ghettos and go house to house IDF style disarming every Black person in the country."

Are you a closet Nazi by any chance?

It must surely have seriously upset you when Obama became President, what with your problem of Melanophobia?

misanthrope,

School cadets had real rifles at school, as an Army armourer I used to visit schools to check their weapons.
The Cadets had to have their rifles at school when we arrived to do inspections.
The Bren Light Machine guns were kept at the school as were the Vickers Medium MGs.
The Officers (teachers) pistols were their own responsibility.

Post WWII the rifles were No1 Mk 3 and 3* .303 and pre-war the Cadets had single shot ,310 Martini rifles.

Rest assured that the School Cadets had real rifles and that they had them at school, exactly the same rifles as the Australian Army had until 1960.

To Susieonline.

Humans live in paradoxical societies where violence towards external enemies is generally applauded, while violence within societies is generally condemned. Human societies have glaring differences in their attitudes to the cultural acceptance or non acceptance of violence within their particular communities. Switzerland's homicide rate is one of the lowest in the world, despite the fact that the Swiss population is the most heavily armed in the world.

Australia's homicide rate is similar to Switzerland's, while the USA's national homicide rate is five times that of Australia. Mexico's rate is three times that of the USA. But even within the USA, wide differences in state homicide rates occur. Despite having almost no firearm laws, northern US states that are primarily still very much majority white, have homicide rates similar to Australia and Switzerland.

It is the US cities which are primarily black and Hispanic which greatly distort the overall US homicide rate. This is hardly surprising when one examines the culture of young black and Hispanic males. The phenomenon of "gangsta" rap music, in which the main themes are the glorification of misogyny, drug abuse, and criminal gang behaviour, highlights the degree to which culture directs behaviour. But the acceptance of "rap" culture, or any other crime glorifying "youth" culture manufactured by the entertainment media is not limited specifically to blacks or Hispanics. Such crime endorsing media can affect the behaviour of all young people, regardless of race.

The most ironic factor in the demands of those who wish to see all guns banned, is that their attitudes do not extend to the entertainment media where the criminal misuse of firearms is endemic. Our media has glorified the criminal misuse of firearms to such a degree, that no self respecting drug trafficker or swaggering thug would be without one. In the same way that the entertainment media promotes alcohol and cigarettes through "product placement", firearm manufacturers are now advertising their wares through movies. The problem with that, is that some fans of these violent role model movie stars will emulate the violent behaviour of these role model stars.

To Jay of Melbourne.

You are only partly correct. Whatever information you have that supports the idea that violent media does not affect behaviour, is media created disinformation.

Scientific studies over the last 60 years have consistently linked violent media to increasing levels of violence in western societies. In the USA, respected scientific and medical organisations including the American Psychological Association (APA), The American Association for Child and Adolescent Psychology, the American Medical Association (AMA), The National Institution for Mental Health, and the American Academy of Paediatrics, issued a historic Joint Statement to the US Congress, testifying that a causal link existed between violent media and real life violence.

The APA submission contained the statement that "the scientific debate is over........there is absolutely no doubt that the increased level of TV viewing is correlated to the acceptance of aggressive attitudes and increased aggressive behaviour." The AMA submission stated "the link between media violence and real life violence has been proven by science, over and over again."

The link between genetics and violence is also a contributing factor. Amusingly, our liberal friend Susieonline unconsciously supported this when she wrote "it is just in some humans nature to be violent." She got that right. The connection that you and Susie then have to make is that it is logical that those communities which possess a genetic proneness to violent behaviour will therefore create a culture which endorses and glorifies their unconscious violent genetic conditioning. Intrinsically violent communities produce violent cultures. Thus we have today's cultural manifestation of rap music which is very popular among those ethnicities most noted for their violent behaviour.

So, in the USA, and increasingly in other western societies, we have increasing numbers of people from ethnicities genetically prone to violent criminal behaviour who are both creating violent culture and acting out the values of that culture, which is greatly distorting western crime rates.

Suse and Jay, do you also think porn is not addictive and has no associated negative impacts on society?

The link between genetics and a propensity to violence, is tenuous at best; whereas the cultural link and attitudes/childhood learning are extremely strong and evidence based; and where violence is presented as entertainment; and domestic violence almost mandatory!

Similarly there appears to be a substantive link between a regional absence of zinc in the local foodstuffs (animal and vegetable) and very quick irrational tempers!

One also notes the sheer numbers of single mum families, who predominate in African American and Hispanic Ghettos!

One also notes the previous predominance of male teachers as role models for motherless boys, and their sheer lack in more recent decades. Hence the more obvious changes?

As recent studies have shown, even girls need a moderating male role model or a dad, in order to develop

Now if we could only bring back compulsory school cadets, and rifle range practice, replete with a he who must be obeyed drill Sargent, and regular boot camps!

However, I believe the days of taking these things home are behind us!
I mean, even regular armory have their weapons stored in the armory until actually needed for training or other duties!

Even there, I would allow off duty solders, who have completed their firearms training, to carry a small concealed weapon and wear Kevlar overalls when off duty.

Never again ought we see a young off duty soldier hacked to death, just because he came out of a barracks, wearing his uniform!

I found nothing more demonstrative than seeing first hand the damage that could be done to marine grade plywood, by a rifle firing blanks at very close range, to understand the lethal power of firearms!

Currently, all kids are allowed to grow up believing, is these things are toys!

Politicians aren't the only ones needing armed protection.
As David has said, when you need police protection seconds count and with the best will in the world, their response is invariably in critical minutes!

Police rarely if if prevent crime; but rather investigate it; but particularly, gun crime!
Rhrosty.

I think that's very bad that kids at school have real guns Is mise. They learn how to kill people when we want the guns to be taken away so no more crimes will happen. Giving kids guns at school is a no brainer I think ?? That's why the city has being so vilont is because of to many guns around take all guns away from kids and adults to ! How do you know Wolly B is not a bad person with guns at his school I'm not saying he is bad, but if all these kids had guns then we know why there are so many criminals who know how to use all these guns if they learn how to shoot them at there school, plane madness ?!

To Rhosty.

The link between genetics and criminal behaviour is hardly "tenuous" when 95% of prison inmates are males. Not just males, but usually young males. Furthermore, extensive IQ studies in the US on prison inmates reveal that the most common IQ of inmates is around 18 IQ points lower than the most common score for the general population (103). Low intelligence is usually the preserve of genetic inheritance although poor nutrition can be a significant factor. Education and nutrition can improve IQ's, but no amount of education or good nutrition can turn an intrinsically dumb person into a Mensa.

Culture is the primary reason for the acceptance of violent behaviour within groups. Culture is most usually linked to race, and races with a genetic predisposition to violent behaviour produce violence endorsing culture.

To Susieonline.

Your premise is that very disproportionate rates of serious crime are caused by poverty and discrimination. Criminologists today do not use poverty as an excuse for criminal behaviour anymore because they know that very poor and very law abiding societies have existed, and still do exist. The statistics published in Lucy Sullivans book "Rising Crime in Australia" showed that crime in Australia was at it's lowest during the Great Depression, when Australia was at it poorest. Similarly, those areas within Australia today with the lowest crime rates are in our rural areas where incomes are low, poverty endemic, and suicides related to financial despair common. Oberon NSW, (est. 1855) recently had it's first armed robbery in it's entire history.

On discrimination, black and Hispanic societies are notoriously dysfunction even in their own homelands where no white discrimination can exist. In any case, blaming the white race for the dysfunctions of other races, is racism. Hitler blamed the Jews for the woes of Germany, and that is universally considered racism. But by some process of cognitive dissonance, you are unable to see your own racism when you make the same sort of claim that Hitler did.

Misanthrope, et al,

The point I took from references to cadets being given rifles to care for was that they were responsible for them and trained in their use.

I referred earlier to US management of personal use of firearms for defence. The thing that struck me about that philosophy was that people were given training, assessed and then issued with a permit to carry a firearm.

In Australia we don't even teach our kids to drive properly. I can understand why this point is missed, but it is extremely important to the outcome.

Apart from the racism on display here, they is also a lot of dumb.
Accidental shooting deaths in the US and elsewhere where there is high fire arms ownership is a significant problem. When you add that to the high levels of drunken violence we have here, any body advocating looser fire arms laws needs take a long hard look at themselves.

I was brought up with firearms, owned several and used to hunt and target shoot with 22's, 10/40 and 12 gauge as well as 223's and 7.62 for full bore target shooting. I gave up my fire arms and let my licence lapse for 10 years. I recently went through the process of getting a fire arms licence to shoot feral animals on my land rather then pay the local roo shooter. I agree with all the hoops I had to jump through to get a firearms licence.

I can fully understand the principle the author is advocating, but I live in the real world full of people who do stupid things. Well trained police rarely have to use deadly force, I would not feel safe with a trigger happy red neck carrying a concealed 45 in his knickers.

If anything we should be making more laws, like mandatory 10 years jail for illegal guns. Keeping them out of the hands of criminals is an important activity. Unlike drugs though guns hurt who their pointed at not the user.

Oh and by the way high crime is the bedfellow of poverty not a persons skin colour.

Corncob, nobody needs a gun for any reason except police and army people nobody else. You say you need gun for shooting animals on your land why ? If animals cause trouble call correct person who can take them away or destroy them all for you, you don't need gun for any reason except you use for other reasons which are a worry?

The Colonial Boy says school boy needs guns to teach them how to use them safety why? Why do school boys need to use guns at all, other then for bad reasons? NOBODY at school ever need to learn about guns, as I said often "no brainer" ?

Only ONLY army air force navy and police people need to have a gun at all nobody else for any any any reason - PROVE ME WRONG everyone ?

No person can prove me wrong about guns, gun cause death, guns cause misery, guns cause hafok, guns only can cause crime so no guns for any real reason necessary ?? Everyone here can see me is right about guns agree ?

<You say youd carried rifles to and from your school Wolly b I don't believe you. You
<would not be allowed to have a rifle in school what a silly thing to say carrying a gun at
<school a joke of course? What are cadets at school anyway other than playing soldiers
<or something? But not have a real gun while at school anyway.

Posted by misanthrope, Wednesday, 24 December 2014 8:52:54 PM

This was the era before people were required to have licences to shot a rifle/gun.

It rifle was a 303 mark 3. We did have them until some more senior cadets decided to try and shoot fish with the rifles and blew up a barrel. Fortunately nobody was injured.

Part to the exercise was to have the barrel absolutely spotless for inspection, and a slightest hint of dirt meant ( I forget).

misanthrope, ITYF the "correct person" would also have a gun, which invalidates most of your argument..

And what's wrong with using a gun to hunt for food?

Wolly B I don't mean you are a bad person but those other kids the senior kids shooting at a barrel for fish is very silly and very dangerous but that's kids playing around with loded guns shows they have no sensce with guns which is very very dangerous.

Aidan asking why not hunt for food with a gun Why? Go to the butcher shop for meat no need for a gun at all really is there? So I think the argument is over because nobody can prove any need to have a gun in our superbs where we all live. No need only cause many troubles for everybody who lives there in the place.

Nobody can prove any need for any gun for any reason except army and police people only. Then police only when in real trouble, not everybody in police need guns show off some of them the young ones show of with guns.

It is proved absolutely no one need guns ever! Just army and (some) policemen only. Imagine if Sydney, no one had any guns at all! No more shooting no more bank robbery no more murders with guns no more accident with guns and no more real problems with guns. Guns always bad for everyone. Guns used only for killing people nothing else at all, just killing people and more killing, nothing else ever for the guns?

Everybody go to bed at night never worry about diying by being shot with gun in bed, at night, never!

Dear Misanthrope,

<<Only ONLY army air force navy and police people need to have a gun at all nobody else for any any any reason - PROVE ME WRONG everyone ?>>

Why prove you wrong when you are right?

Nobody needs anything. We don't need cars for example - we can just walk, we don't need air-conditioning - we'll just get hot/cold, we don't even need food - we could starve but that's OK.

Same for a sense of security? Indeed, who needs it - we can just live in fear, especially the elderly, that's OK.

Most of all, there's one thing we definitely don't need - a government to tell us what we may, must or may not have.

I personally would never touch a gun again (after being forced as a conscript to be married to one against my will), but I would be more than happy if burglers BELIEVED that I have one at home ready to take them if they dare enter.

Dear Mr Cornonacob.

The premise I am pushing, is that crime in Australia was very much lower when Australia had practically no gun laws at all. For fifty years, Australia has tried to reduce our ever spiralling crime rates by introducing ever more restrictive firearm laws. The only result to this has been that our crime rates keep getting worse.

I am not saying that restrictive gun laws do not help. It is just that our political leaders refuse to consider the real reasons for rising crime and instead just keep making our firearms laws more onerous for no tangible result. They are aiming at the wrong target. We are now living in the Age of Islamic Terrorism. The author of this article is I think correct in suggesting that arming some trusted members of our population to defend ourselves from Muslims is a smart thing to do.

The Israelis arm themselves against Muslim terrorism, and it is quite common for a western tourist to get on an Israeli bus and see an Uzi beside the bus driver. Israelis walk around supermarkets packing Uzis, Galils, and Glocks. Things are not as bad in Australia regarding Muslim terrorism as they are in Israel yet, so I am not advocating a general arming of the non Muslim population. But as the Muslim presence in Australia keeps increasing, and since Muslim attacks on western civilians keeps increasing, it is only a matter of time before more ISIL and Taliban wannabees living in Australia take more hostages.

At the very least, serving officers of the Australian Armed forces should be armed with concealed weapons when off duty. This can be extended to NCO's as Muslim terrorism becomes worse. There are historical precedents for this which suggest that arming certain members of the public prevents crime. I lived through a time when jeweller, gun shop owners, bank tellers, and any member of the public who job involved the transportation of large amounts of cash, could carry concealed weapons. At that time, offences such as armed robbery had very much lower rates than they did today.

While I agree with David on a lot of issues, this is not one of them.

For every "liberty" people have there is a cost. For the right not to wear seat belts there is a cost in road fatalities, for the right of self defense, there is a surge in gun crime and violence that vastly outweighs the occasional time someone can defend himself.

A colleague of mine from South Africa gave me an interesting statistic from a culture rife with guns:

Of the people that carry guns for self defense, more are killed with their own weapons than successfully defend themselves.

misanthrope, you've avoided answering my question. I did not ask "why not hunt for food with a gun", I asked "what's wrong with using a gun to hunt for food?". Personally I don't; I get meat from the shops. But that's my choice – why should everyone else be forced to do the same?

And I notice you're silent about those you want cornonacob to pay to destroy the feral animals on his land (rather than doing it himself at a much lower cost) needing guns.

Even if in Sydney had nobody had any guns at all, the threat of gun crime there would still exist because it would not be possible to ensure Sydney stayed gun free.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

LEGO, do you have any actual evidence that "crime in Australia was very much lower when Australia had practically no gun laws at all"? Your claim that "The only result to this has been that our crime rates keep getting worse" is certainly false in the case of the Howard government's gun laws.

Misanthrope: It must be such a comfort to know you're always right; just as (terrified) John Howard was, when he "disarmed only" the law abiding gun owners.

I'm still waiting for the Authorities to remove the guns from the hands of the criminal element!
Perhaps they should be dobbed in, disarmed or shot on sight by law abiding gun owners?

As we found out with the war on drugs, which has already killed more Americans and Mexicans than WW11; and just increases in violence and the mounting death toll; prohibition is impossible; and or, it's impossible to enforce unenforceable laws!

Already most American prisons (private enterprise in action) are bulging at the seams; and the lawlessness just increases!

Should we tell a man who has run out of welfare and food stamps not to take up arms in order to fed his family and or eat? Just how do you do that?

Of course he has other options, he and his family could chose to simply starve.

And it's no use telling him he could just get a job when he's already sold the family jalopy,[needed to travel to where the work might be,] and much of the Midwest is now covered in virtual depression era tent cities and soup kitchens!

You think with your mindset that means work is plentiful don't you?

Not for nothing was the humble rabbit (starvation diet) the mainstay of many a depression era family!
And we are looking right down the barrel of yet another even worse depression!

Simply put, if people are forced to hunt ferals for food, then they need to be properly trained in the safe and proper use of firearms!

None of which happens in the very well armed criminal world; or even where annual license fees (revenue raising/extortion or "gun crime") become completely prohibitive for the poor and downtrodden!

It's okay to visit a dream castle in the clouds Misanthrope, but one must never move in as a permanent resident!
Cheers, Rhrosty.

misanthrope,

Look up Zimmerstutzen if you think that all guns are designed for nothing but killing.

Here's a reference to save you the effort,
https://www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=zimmerstutzen

Lord of the flies LEGO Lord of the flies; rather than race based ethnicity!

I mean, look at the deep south and at extremism like the Klu Klux Klan; or the religious extremism that prevails back in then thar hills, where every boy and his hown dawg has a gun and attends snake bite initiation ceremonies, that masquerade as religious worship!

Ah say, listen here boy, what don't kill yer can only make yer stronger! Oops!

Now gimme some of that white lightening, ah need to drown ma sorrows!
Yehar!

Ouch, watch where you're pointing that thar pistol Paw, you just done shoot me in ma big toe daddy!
The self same one you got me in last week! It sure do smart some!
How am ah supposed to take those little piggies to market now?

It seems odd don't you think, in those parts the savages are the "civilized" white folk; and the colored folk are the peaceable Hymn singing neighbors, albeit with their fair share of "sanctioned" or culturally acceptable domestic violence?

A thousand blessings Effendi, and may the fleas of a thousand camels infest your armpits.

Ah sigh, would that I could enjoy such perverse pleasure!
Cheers, Rhrosty.

Rhosty, Aiden and LEGO, Australia is nothing like America, so I don't know why you go on about our need to learn the fun art of shooting guns so we can shoot any random terrorist in the street, or some skinny rabbit in a nearby field?

A bit paranoid maybe?

I for one, after learning how to pull the trigger and knock off someone's head, would then have to take lessons in preparations of fluffy bunny for tea!

Rhrosty your posts are much better when you don't cut & paste garbage. If anyone in this welfare state has run out of money to feed their family, they are idiots, who spend our taxes frivolously.

Shadow Minister, I'm surprised at you, posting emotive garbage from the anti gun lobby, as if it had some validity.

I have been carrying an air rifle since I was 10, & a rifle since I was 12, & you know, no one has ever taken it off me & shot me, & I have yet to kill anyone with one.

In my early teens I & many like me, supplemented the family food stock with a 22 occasionally. Of course, being kids for whom a gun was a tool, & not a symbol, we usually dug the rabbits out of their burrows with a mattock, rather than waste expensive ammunition on them.

People who are afraid of honest men having a gun are really too responsive to emotive symbols, to be more than a waste of space.

Rhrosty,
There were about 3,000 recorded extra judicial executions in the U.S.A between the end of the civil war and the 1970's, somewhat less than 2000 of the executed people were Black.
Last year alone Blacks are thought to have perpetrated around 7,000 murders of other Blacks, America doesn't have a gun problem is has a Black problem.
Go to Google and spend an hour going through crime statistics for the Appalchian region, Kentucky, West Virginia, Eastern Ohio, Pennsylvania and Tennesee, which have some of the poorest counties in the U.S.A but which are also overwhelmingly White and compare the crime rates to similarly poor but majority Black counties in Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi.
Why is crime almost non existent in "them thar hills" and out of control in Tuskeegee, or Montgomery or Atlanta?
Socio economic factors and discrimination have nothing to do with the problem, Appalachian whites are poor, suffer discrimination and have to live down apalling stereotypes (as you've thoughtfully demonstrated for us) yet they commit almost no violent crime.

If the U.S is to be used as an example or supporting evidence in the gun debate then we need to look at similar communities with similar ethnic makeup and compare like for like. We don't have large numbers of American Negroes in Australia so we need to look at communities in the U.S which are around 92% White, 5% Asian and 3% Indigenous, in that light the evidence suggests than allowing people to own firearms will have no effect on violent crime in Australia.

Suseonline, I said no such thing. I don't have a gun and have not advocated learning to shoot them; indeed I've never even fired one.

However the fact remains that not everyone's like me. Many people do hunt for food, so why should we disallow them? The same goes for shooting targets for sport. And culling animals, which is sometimes needed in Australia for environmental reasons, is usually most effectively done with guns.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Jay, ITYF that's driven more by drugs than by race. Low crime rates in rural areas is something that happens regardless of ethnicity. And considering the effect the Howard governments gun laws had on violent crime in Australia, your claim that "allowing people to own firearms will have no effect on violent crime in Australia" is obviously wrong.

Dear Hasbeen,

<<People who are afraid of honest men having a gun are really too responsive to emotive symbols,>>

Not necessarily - they could be very rational robbers, burglars, rapists and terrorists.

I speak English bad but that's OK. I do not be rude to anybody here and Im not been a smart alek either. In my old country Elbasan, in Albania guns tanks a large guns enerywhere police and government police everyone has guns many die by guns ? Australia has no many guns but even some is very bad like Albania. Think about it please. I speak no more about guns now.

Hi there MISANTHROPE...

I get your drift of things concerning your total opposition to F/A's being in the hands of anyone other than the authorities ? Post the events at Port Arthur (a fellow went amok with a military styled F/A and murdered over thirty innocent people)the then PM, John HOWARD strengthened federal F/A's import laws, and implored the States, to harden up on their own State F/A legislation, which was consequently achieved.

However MISANTHROPE, to further restrict ordinary people from lawfully possessing and using F/A's, would prove counterproductive in my opinion. Furthermore it may do irreversible harm to what goodwill that may 'still' exist, between government legislators, and the many law-abiding citizens, if any new F/A laws were to be introduced.

And without first, encouraging broad public support, this whole 'lawful possession of guns' question, becomes a much more serious even sinister underground, black-market industry ? Resulting in absolute pandemonium for police and public alike ?

Could you imagine for a moment, a large hoard of guns and munitions being secreted, even buried in the bush someplace (shade's of occupied France during WW.ll), just waiting for the right moment for them to be revealed in some form of anti-government revolt ?

For any piece of legislation to work, governments must be able to generate a fair degree of public support, otherwise it'll be doomed to fail in the fullness of time, with substantial collateral damage, usually ?

MISANTHROPE I hope this may help you understand a little more about this whole question of firearm ownership and use ?

Well it looks like Russia's ahead of us on this issue.

http://rt.com/news/206703-russia-guns-self-defense/

Hello Senator,

"Hope has no foundation, without a base attached to it." So if someone like (you) Senator David Leyonhjelm, want to "hope" that everything will turn out for the best with this policy attitude (on improved human protection in Australia by use of various weapon types) then prove it by "fact". I don't rely on "fiction".

Those, like Senator David Leyonhjelm can very easily make comments like he has - as these people will often have no personal or direct connection to the reality of the issue - that being the "shock" factor. I have.

Personally, I have Epilepsy. After having a large seizure in 2007 and taken to Hospital from suffering severe injuries, I was later advised to start seeing a Neurologist again. I'd had Epilepsy since about eight years of age - but only two seizures since then.

Luckily I had chosen to not take up driving, and I was then advised not to take up driving after the 2007 incident. I went with the "facts" put forward.

Since then I've had 100's of seizures - as my previous medication I was (and found then to be allergic to), was giving me a bone density condition. I have only just found medications that have cut my seizures down by around 90% - and I have to take 7 medications per week re Epilepsy and bone density.

On radio however a few months ago, a woman from a cycling foundation - stated how all cyclists have "rights" to cycle on roads and if there any road incidents - car drivers were 100% at fault. She wasn't realising there are accidents re drivers and bikes on roads and one party can be at fault or it can be both.

People who have not been directly affected by a situation can be very out of touch and don't think of others. I decided not to drive after 2007 (ever) - and I put my "rights" aside for the safety of myself and others.

More "rights" can make a "wrong".

Hi Rhosty

You have just made derogatory racist stereotypes of white people who live in the South of the USA. I never figured you for a racist, Rhosty, but welcome to the club.

Here are some facts about racism in the USA.

There are five-and-one-half as many whites as blacks in the USA. But....

* There are almost 2 MILLION black-on-white violent assaults in the USA country every year. Blacks are 18 times (1,800%) more likely to commit a violent crime against a white person, than a white person is against a black person.

* A black man is 9 times (900%) more likely to rape a white woman, than a white man a black woman.

* “Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.”

* Nationally, youth gangs are 90 percent non-white. “Hispanics are 19 times more likely than whites to be members of youth gangs. Blacks are 15 times more likely, and Asians are nine times more likely.”

* Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black.

* Blacks are eight times more likely than people of other races to rob someone, and 5.5 times more likely to steal a car.

Now Rhosty, after reading these figures, which race do you consider to be the most racist? Given the unacceptable threat that blacks pose to whites, might it be understandable that white people might seek to use any means like the KKK to defend themselves from black racist violence? Since the demise of the KKK, black crime has gone right out of control in the South. In 1993, in Washington DC, the mayor (Sharon Kelly) begged the governor to release the National Guard because the Washington police admitted that they had lost control of the streets of the US capitol.

Sorta puts a different slant on it, dunnit?

Suse,

I've just come back from shooting a brace of rabbits and a hare.
Our rabbits are not skinny and these three animals will make four meals for my wife and I and the left overs will be appreciated by the chooks, as were the innards.
I used a very high tech firearm, a reproduction of a Barnett Trade Gun of circa 1780, in 20 gauge.

See: http://www.thefurtrapper.com/images/Barnett%20Trade%20Gun.jpg

The gun is registered of course, if it were an original it would not have to be registered and no licence required to keep it.

A friend of mine has four Brown Bess muskets, as were carried by the troops on the First Fleet; three are absolutely original even to a fairly seen coat of the brown paint that gave them their name.
The fourth is a reproduction Brown Bess musket that he uses in re-enactments, it is of an inferior quality to the originals.
The repro has to be registered but not the originals.

Now that makes sense [?] and Australia is one of the few countries that requires flintlock muzzle loading guns to be registered if one wants to use one.
Perhaps the authorities are afraid that someone might go on the rampage with one and hold off the police as he/she fires a shot every two or three minutes.

Here's a nice repro: http://www.middlesexvillagetrading.com/images/thumb_M1BB_full.JPG
[click photo to enlarge]

Sorry about that to see the enlarged and clearer pics go to
http://www.middlesexvillagetrading.com/M1BB.shtml
and have a read.

Aidan, that argument doesn't hold water either.
Methamphetamine is a huge problem in rural White communities in the U.S just as crack cocaine and marijuana have a hold on Black communities, meth is endemic in areas like Montana, Oklahoma, Idaho and Indiana as well as rural California and Oregon.
Look at the list of the poorest counties in the U.S.A:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lowest-income_counties_in_the_United_States
There's clearly no relationship between either isolation or poverty and violent crime, most of the poorest yet most peaceful counties are over 90% White, the most violent are all over 40% Black.
Rhrosty said that poor, rural Whites were violent when it's easily dmonstrated that they are the least violent communities and that the Ku Klux Klan contributed to that violence when even the radical anti White hate site the SPLC can only come up with about 20 murders attributable to "White Supremacists" in the last twenty years (they say 100 but they include the Utoya massacre in Norway since Breivik allegedly emailed his manifesto to some neo Nazis in the states).
"White Supremacist" gangs are known for two things, their paranoia and their propensity for killing each other, they rarely attack or kill anyone who's not White and not an associate of their gang.
The F.B.I crime figures have also also become unreliable since 2005 when they re classified Latin Americans as "White", apart from a few very isolated cases Whites simply don't commit violent, racially motivated crime:
http://www.amren.com/features/2013/11/a-meaningless-hate-crime-report/

"Now that makes sense [?] and Australia is one of the few countries that requires flintlock muzzle loading guns to be registered if one wants to use one. Perhaps the authorities are afraid that someone might go on the rampage with one and hold off the police as he/she fires a shot every two or three minutes".

Don't be so silly Is Mise, you don't need fire any shots to hold the police off. Just a backpack with a bit of wire hanging out of it will do that for you.

In fact, with some of our assistant commissioners, just shouting BOO loudly should do.

Not convinced the politics around access to weapons is entirely about public safety. Suspect it's also about one element wanting to impose their ideas and values upon everyone else without fear.
Much change has been forced upon us in the last two decades and quite conspicuously the proponents of much of this change are also the strongest proponents of civil disarmament and reliance on the state for physical protection. All very advantageous for the would be agressor and political busybody alike. Almost looks like a protection racket.
Oddest of the proponents are the Liberal party. We're told the "age of entitlement" must end but when it comes to the most fundamental element of self reliance which is physical self defence we're told "No way, Absolutely not". We're told we must rely entirely on the state for that. Quite the contradiction.

Personally I couldn't think of anything more tedious than carrying a weapon of some sort around with me. Imagine I'd just avoid those places where that might be needed. Hard for the shopkeeper though. Or the frail and vulnerable in their homes. Our laws compel flight. That's pretty cold when it comes to someone like a mother with toddlers or the elderly. When it comes to the confines of our own homes and even our places of business why the hell should we have to run?
This is where it gets down to fundamentals.
The current firearm laws are only a side issue. They're a proven failure as a crime fighting tool and everyone knows it. The issue we should also be discussing is do we have the right to stand our ground or not. Espescially on our own property. Of course to stand our ground we must have the means to at least match an agressor. In public places is another question. What we may have and do within our own space is the issue.
Pretty confident if the question of viable self defence within own private space was put to the public the response would be strongly in favour of the right

G'day HASBEEN...

Now you're on the money there HASBEEN ! Finally you've got it ! All one needs to do (if an Assistant Commissioner) is say Boo 'with conviction', and they'll all give up ?

Concerning the actual Drafting of the F/A Regulations (part of the Act). back when all the laws were tightened post Port Arthur - Those with the responsibility of Drafting, sought advice on the Definition section, broadly speaking they concluded '...anything capable of discharging a missile...' was considered an integral part of that definition of a firearm, thus capturing almost everything, including low powered air rifles, nail guns, stunning guns used in abattoirs, together with poor IS MISE'S replica 20g 'Barnett' Trade Gun obviously ?

The people who Drafted everything are qualified lawyers (solicitors barristers, those of whom were most skilled in admin. law). Specific knowledge of F/A's per se, was not a requirement. Drafting legal material, legislation Admin. Docs., and other admin law matters were essentially what was required ! If necessary, they sought advice from experts (Military, police etc.), were given Drafting Instructions, in order to complete their tasks.

Consequently, many minor mistakes were made during the initial Drafting phase, and were subsequently rectified as they occurred ? Over time, several other more intractable and persistent problems, have remained unaltered , and as they say, too difficult and costly to amend and rectify, until such time as it becomes absolutely necessary ?

Basically that's how it all came together as they say ? Generally speaking, the main criticism was generally apportioned to the ridiculous 'speed' in which these 'Legal Drafter's' had to complete their jobs ? Governments were all petrified that a 'copy cat' event could occur, after Port Arthur ? Therefore this much tighter legislation was needed to hit the streets 'post haste' as it were ? So there we are ?

Jamo
I wouldn't buy a gun either, I've no use for one, it's just that in a 92% White society there's no harm in people keeping them or carrying them in public if they really want to as long as they can pass all the background checks and licensing tests.

O Sung Wu,

I have it on good authority [from one who was there] that muzzle loading guns were to be excluded but the NSW Minister of the time, asked
"What are muzzle loaders?"
"What Davy Crockett had".
"He killed plenty of Indians" said the Minister "register them"

On such chance were some of the laws based.

One law was later changed because the then Commissioner of Police, Peter Ryan, didn't like it as it was not as restrictive as English law; when asked why he wasn't pushing for other firearm laws to be brought into line with the more lenient English laws he ignored the question.
Fortunately for NSW, the Government finally realized that he was a clown and paid his contract out and sent him home.

We're not far apart Jay.

I already own longarms. Have since I was a teenager. At first for hunting then target shooting but now mostly just for on farm vermin control.
Never had an interest in handguns. First used one in the army reserve and again a few times at the club but was never impressed by them. Underpowered things that're hard to hit anything with and being short are too damned easy to unwittingly point in a dangerous direction.
Takes a switched on person properly trained to handle them safely.
I reckon carting one about would just be a worry.

Agree with you the only issue should be background check. Can't see any purpose for more than that. A safe handling course would be a plus.
Indeed I fail to see any real reason for firearms licences as we currently have them. IMO if we have a firearms registry that can serve as the licence system. Licence the firearm and don't bother with the personal firearms licence. It's only duplication. If a firearm's registered to your name the liability rests with you.
That's how we could easily do away with the useless components of the current F/A laws and retain the only useful part that keeps someone from buying them legitimately and onselling to a blackmarket. All the rest of it is pointless.

But I see that as a side issue to what David's raising. He's on about the right to posess self defence weapons of any type. The current situation creates a huge imbalance that makes the good vulnerable.
And especially in your own home or place of business it's just wrong that we can't posess a ready means to repel an assailant.

Hi Is Mise, it looks like Rhosty is Missing in Action, so I would like to address your point.

England once had the lowest homicide rate ever recorded in the industrial world between 1900 and 1970 (0.5 per 1000,000), even though it was perfectly legal in 1920 to own a handgun, provided you bought a tax stamp from the post office. England tightened up it's gun laws in the 1930's not because of any crime rise, but because the British government feared a communist revolution.

England was considered such a safe society, that much to the amazement of governments worldwide, English police alone did not carry handguns. Even English criminals had been conditioned by their culture to regard the use of handguns as the weapons of "nutters". A "gentleman's agreement" with English police limited English professional criminal violence to the criminal's traditional "cosh" and the police's traditional baton.

This began to change with the liberalisation of English censorship laws in the late 60's, with the introduction of movies glorifying drug abuse, youth criminal gangs, personal violence, revenge, massacre behaviour, and the violent criminal lifestyle. Extremely violent criminals like the "Kray" brothers became media celebrities.

British police now admit that despite a total ban on handguns in all of Britain, gun violence is out of control. Manchester has been renamed "Gunchester" in the British media owing to the number of shootings involving mainly imported ethnic gang members. The police in Latvia and Estonia claimed that their countries were virtually "crime free" as all of their violent criminal had immigrated to Britain for the richer pickings.

Chief Inspector Colin Grenwood was quoted in the media as saying...

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

I think we need to make a distinction between hand guns (pistols) that have short barrel, a rifle has a long barrel (unless sawn off) and a shot gun that normally has a long barrel (again unless sawn off)

A large percentage of the Accidental shootings in the US seem to be related to the possession of hand guns (pistols)

The Rifles used in the mass shootings in the US, seem to be more the military automatic calibre.

Shotguns are only good for close range, at 100 metres the pellets might sting a bit. (factors include the choke and shot (pellet size). Shot guns can do horrendous damage at close range.

WollyB,

I wouldn't like to stand in front of a shotgun at 400 yards, especially if it is firing slugs; the longest range that I've fired a 3inch chambered 12 gauge with rifled slugs is 200 yards and at that range they penetrated a 44 gallon drum that was not rusted.
Volley fire from smooth bore muskets in the Napoleonic wars was deadly at 200 yards and a musket is no different to a shotgun.

Hasbeen,

Unfortunately you are right, but there doesn't need to be any wires dangling from a backpack or a belly bag, the presence of the container could indicate explosives and it would be a reckless person who ordered or who took a shot on their own initiative when the target has hostages in a confined space.
Explosives are easy to get so if there is a backpack etc., in a hostage situation it would be prudent to assume that there are explosives.
Muslims have been known to blow themselves up in the recent past.

Here's a link to an article, including video, in the 'Canberra Times'
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/explosions-show-power-of-common-chemicals-supermarket-products-20130725-2qmu0.html

Well argued LEGO:
It's so refreshing when someone relies on facts to carry an argument.
Unlike another poster who claims that the KKK was born entirely in response to black aggression! [Oh my aching ribs!]

Like those terrible former slaves following the drinking gourd, on the freedom railway.

Similarly, the African American, was treated quite shamefully by his white military counterparts during WW1 and WW11!

Quite blatant prejudice the only real justification; and in all three services;, and on the part of some very Senior ranking officers, who ought to have been the ones setting the example and carrying the acceptable standards!

Nor was the treatment by some white soldiers of Japanese prisoners of war, by any measure, civilized!

Nor was the Meili massacre!

Simply put, nutters don't come in any particular color, but learn all their prejudices/acceptable standards at their mothers knee!?

Be they Bosnian Serbs, Nazi butchers or Russian Gulag guards.
And there was quite a warrior tradition among the Celts and the Vikings!
And not so much as a single black face among them.

The point I was trying to make earlier, [with my inimical humor] for another poster, was being black didn't automatically make one an uncivilized savage!
And nobody is born a racist!

All one needs is the culture, and cultural norms to do that.

Thus it has been so down the the ages, from the Greek and Roman civilizations, and the Huns that supplanted them.

Of course we shouldn't put guns in the hands of children or even untrained hands, (same diff/same danger)and to date that has largely all that the tougher gun laws have achieved!

The old gentlemen's agreements and honor among thieves worked far better, and not just in Britain!

Life wasn't meant to be taken too seriously, after all, none of us get out of it alive, do we?

You'll have a nice day now, Y'hear, Rhrosty.

Why not a weapon that merely disables your assailant ? There are a few but they need to be improved upon.

Arjay, unless very competent, it is hard enough to disable an attacker with a gun. Trying to disable with anything else would mostly be a waste of time. If you chose to use a weapon, don't muck around with fancy stuff, unless you are Tom Mix in disguise.

There is still one weapon available to the general public, that is definitely capable, but takes a lot of training & skill, the bow. The cross bow, that many could actually shoot accurately, is on the banned list.

You could defend yourself with that old English standby the long bow. It will do the job, once you have it strung. That is a time consuming effort, but perhaps the home invader will wait for you to do it. I personally would rather be shot with a gun than an arrow. I've seen the difference.

Upgrade a little to a modern recurve bow, & if made of steel can be left strung without too much loss of power, but it will take some training to master it. Perhaps the threat would be adequate with most criminals.

Then we have the modern bow, with pulleys & wheels & wire all over the place. They look awful, but hit with the power of the old 303.

I can still fire my 70Lb hunting bow, but can not hold a draw without wobbling. I have to snap shoot, but am still effective. I can not draw my sons flash modern thing, as it goes through a high poundage area at about half draw.

My bow is strung, always, as it would be more use in an criminal emergency than my rifle, locked in it's steel box up the shed.

Rhrosty,
Nobody said anything about the Klan's origins, everbody knows that they were a Democratic party militia with an anti Republican and anti Catholic agenda and when they did attack Blacks it was politically motivated, to punish them for supporting the wrong White man.
So keeping most Negroes out of combat in the world wars was abusive behaviour was it? Never mind that they make terrible soldiers, that they're quarrelsome, violent and dumb and would have been slaughtered if they'd gone up against the Germans or the Japanese.
You like to get your "facts" from novels right? Read Buffalo Soldiers by Robert O'Connor, it's about a drug dealer on an Army base in Germany in the 1970's, they also made it into a film but left out most of the scenes in the book where the Negro soldiers are running amok.

Oh IS MISE, you get hit 'centre mass' with your friendly 'Brenneke' 12g slug, it'll sure make your eyes water, plus a bit more ! Is it any wonder why the crooks call the 'shoty' the 'great equaliser' ! And with such a wide range of 'purpose designed' ordnance to complete even the 'fussiest' people's inventory !

'Shoty's' are so very versatile even as a secondary delivery system, proving their amazing worth, even in Vietnam and other jungle environments !

Arjay, "Why not a weapon that merely disables your assailant?"

Assuming you live outside of NSW, if you do that and injure the home invader in any way, you will certainly be arrested yourself and will be required to demonstrate to a court under the reversed standard of proof that was introduced by the political 'Progressives' to protect offenders' rights and welfare while they are on the job.

In NSW the grossly unfair reversed standard of proof has been withdrawn*, but police (and the shameful media) still do this to homeowners who have defended themselves against an assailant, (Donald Brooke example)

http://www.protectionist.net/2011/09/27/protecting-your-property-against-home-invaders/

At last police and the media leave Brooke in (relative) peace,

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/news/no-charges-for-donald-brooke-who-fatally-stabbed-home-invader-azzam-naboulsi/story-e6frg6o6-1226242200976?nk=e1da8a49145333ea622254672441c714

You are expected to be totally unprepared and defenceless, with a lucky break being the only possibility to preserve your life against cowardly assailants. See here,

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/no-mercy-elderly-man-fights-off-intruders-20121111-296dg.html

Hasbeen,

Be aware that as a Queenslander, where the reversed standard of proof still applies, your chosen means of defence and your admission on this forum could put you in goal if you happen to threaten or harm some offender who is intent upon robbing you.

*The reversed standard of proof applies in all Australian jurisdictions except NSW where the Shooters and Fishers Party recently had the disgusting provision removed from the Statute books.

Quote: "Legally, Australians have a right to self-defence. What we don't have is the practical ability to exercise that right." Wrong.

The article then says: "Owning any object for the purpose of self-defence, lethal or non-lethal, is a criminal offence." I disagree.

People have body parts. Some may argue they are owned by the individual - others may have different opinions of no ownership at all or another point of view. However the article asserts that "we" need to have a physical man made item to protect ourselves when we may or do not.

One only has to look at various forms of wrestling for example, some which have lasted for several centuries, sending a very basic message that people as individuals can take action re their own protection. This then limits the need for later period weapons of all types.

One example of this is Cornish wrestling or 'Omdowl Kernewek' in the Cornish language. The objective of Cornish wrestling is to throw your opponent and make him or her land as flat as possible on their back. Cornish wrestling (I've seen it - and it is "full on") and Martial arts could be a way to take action in an environment of insecurity - without a need or feeling to hold "full on" weapons (of any type) in Australia in 2014.

Nathan J,

How does that help the elderly or the women alone at home with the children against an assailant? Remembering that the assailant is practiced at his work, has thought things through and will always have the element of surprise and timing on his side?

o sung wu,

As you and Is Mise would know, the concern is always not to have 'over-penetration' and carry that could injure others.

If a person were ever to use a shotgun for home defence (and remembering that close confines are problematical for a long barrel), the choice would be the lightweight .410 firing BBs. Two barrels are sufficient.

Women pioneers used a .410 for thieving birds in the garden to foxes in the hen house. No problems with two legged pests if ever needed, the No4 shot or next barrel the BBs are adequate to deter.

Remember however that the leftist 'Progressives', who value a criminal's welfare and rights above the homeowners, have inserted the reversed standard of proof that (outside of NSW) could see the woman who defends herself facing serious charges. The stereotyping of women as defenceless victims could eventually protect her when she faces a jury.

That brings me to the point that is usually forgotten in these discussions, that the business of maiming and killing by offenders is usually done with blunt weapons, eg baseball bat. It is easily hidden, quiet, sudden and effective. In view of that, it is amazing how many bleeding heart 'do-gooders' exclaim, "Oh, but the offender was 'only'[sic] armed with a steel bar", ignorant that blunt trauma is the most common cause of death by far.

Onthebeach,

Senator David Leyonhjelm, said "Legally, Australians have a right to self-defence. What we don't have is the practical ability to exercise that right and owning any object for the purpose of self-defence, lethal or non-lethal, is a criminal offence."

The senators introduction provided no legal facts to back his case and in fact they were totally baseless. I simply provided a rebuttal to that - Cornish wrestling. Since its introduction being a sport, it is a very good way of protecting an individual from violent behaviour, with no need for a physical item for protection - but can the Senator in question guarantee that with man made items for personal protection our community will be 100% safe? No he cannot. Neither would Cornish wrestling. See the connection?

We all have natural actions and elements that can protect us in some form - and to send a message that we do not is verging on irresponsible.

If a person who is elderly or not and is facing an extreme situation and feels uncomfortable, do your best to use your 'fingers' (another natural element) and dial 000. I know it sounds boring or not like a five star hollywood film, but we have a very good emergency services team throughout most parts of Australia and we should recognise that - and no, not all assailants are well practiced at their work.

Do grow up Nathan, & stop talking garbage.

I was trained in all forms of unarmed combat, but that was 54 years ago. Armstrong defence is no longer an option.

Yes onthebeach, I was advised by the local Sargent of police, in a country town many years ago, to not even consider injuring an intruder. He reckoned I would end up having to sell the property to pay the compensation some idiot judge would award them.

No, his advice was to shoot the intruder between the eyes, making sure they were very dead. This way they could not spin a yarn, or claim innocence to said idiot judge. I should then refuse to answer any questions, until a good lawyer had told me exactly what to say.

Now I doubt my ability to follow such advice with a hunting bow, but as mentioned, I do get wobbly when trying to hold a drawn bow, so accidents could happen if I was showing one to an unwelcome intruder..

Again I'm sure that advice about shutting up, until after talking to a good/bad lawyer would still be useful.

It should not surprise too many that more than one uninvited person entering my property would lead to me suddenly having to clean my hunting bow, or having my large dog beside me at the door.

Nathan J,

Yes, you may defend yourself. Then you will very likely be arrested if you harmed the offender, and of course the offender may also bring claims for compensation against you as well.

Bit rough some might say, where the brute undertook a planned home invasion and threatened you with a gun, machete or baseball bat, but you reached for your iron fire poker left beside the bed for that purpose and clouted him with it. The police later alleged it was by definition a weapon since you had it there for the purpose and admitted that to them. The kitchen knife could also be a weapon and your Leatherman of course.

It is defend yourself if you dare because you will then be re-victimised by being placed in a cell, interrogated by police who want a conviction and charged. After your reputation has been trashed, job prospects affected and your home sold to pay for your defence, you might rue the day you thought you could defend yourself.

Have a look at Crimes Amendment (Self-Defence) Bill, NSW, which removed the onus that is placed upon YOU as the victim of an attack to prove later in a court that yes you did fear harm and the means of escape was denied and so on. The change rightly put the onus back on the prosecution to disprove self-defence beyond all reasonable doubt. That is eminently reasonable, wouldn't you say?

You say that victims should use their fingers and call police. Frankly, even if you could get that call in, it is highly unlikely the police will arrive to save the day. If you think about it you should soon realise why.

Hasbeen,

Agreed.

What I wonder is how the looney leftists were ever allowed to geld what I would take as a Common Law right to self defence that existed for centuries, and twist it to put the onus on the victim to defend his/her defence of themselves and loved ones against a criminal.

What the hell is going on the media that the alarm bells didn't sound?

This news UK news item describes the leftist 'Progressive' political correctness that our foolish politicians have allowed to take over here as well,

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/jan/10/myleene-klass-knife-intruders

Hasbeen,

The below shows that individuals can and will need to 'win' without weapons - regardless of some plastic words on this page by myself and others.

The "realities" of the Sydney case involving one person: Mr O'Brien (a hostage) was forced to put his hands up against the cafe window by Man Haron Monis, but told him he was too tired and was able to sit down. Being told to lie on the floor during the ordeal, Mr O'Brien said he was too old to lie on the floor.

Mr O'Brien quietly slipped out of his seat and sat on the floor. He'd seen a gap between the wall and a large advertising placard. He'd roughly worked out the gap space but he knew he had to squeeze through if his plan was to work.

Failing several times, he made it through. Now the placard was obscuring him from the gunman. Laying down, looking up at a green button, he was not sure if it would open the door, or if he could be killed.

He reached up and pushed the green button and he was free and one of the first hostages to escape.

So instead of people on this topic talking "garbage" people need to realise:

1. Accepting what the Senator has offered is irresponsible as it does not consider the wider community in terms of safety;
2. Simplistic references about lawyers and old information from police are out of date;
3. Major political parties will not accept relaxed gun laws;
4. These parties won't take use of items mentioned for protection from the Senator in question;
5. Silly references to certain races of people achieve nothing;
6. Smart and intelligent action, like that of Mr O'Brian are needed to move further.

So people out there, wake up and realise the "realities" of this situation.

Hi there NATHANJ...

You say '...So instead of people on this topic talking "garbage", people need to realise...' ?

OK, so many of us are speaking "garbage" according to your reckoning, how so ? Obviously you're in possession of certain information that would assist us all to avoid such an awful event that has occurred at Martin Place recently ? Accordingly, would you kindly share that data with us please ? In order that we may all appraise ourselves on reducing or managing our own personal risk in future ?

NJEIWILSON...

You've provided those of us who've thought to read your thread, with a very curious extract of some individual or organisation that assists an individual to commit a criminal offence. Why ? What is the point of rendering yourself perilously close to a charge of conspiracy - or to aid and abet, even an accessory (before) the fact, an intent to manifestly aid an individual to defraud, by conspiring with others, to furnish a false identity ? What's the point of it all, NJEIWILSON ?

Because of this pervading climate of terrorism, and a heightened security alert, police and other commonwealth security agencies are watching closely for any individuals who may attempt to canvass others to commit criminal offences, vie any communication mediums, such as email etc. So you're either somewhat naïve, or merely playing a joke, either way it may well come back and bite you ?

o sung wu,

I'd put a certain comment down on this topic and I was told to stop "talking garbage" (using things like Cornish wrestling as a solution) - but that was my intention - to draw attention to some of the silly things some people were saying or suggesting on this topic. I was not however talking down self defence, or the defence of others however. I still support that - and state laws vary on that matter.

So now, you have come to a start of good questions, and options that need to be asked and investigated - and you are probably one of the first people on this page that has started to put forward some good points. A plus.

I'm not going to claim I can answer all of your questions, but that is why we have police, politicians, agencies and other people trained in the relevant fields to address matters that affect the public. We can keep talking about the recent comments by Senator David Leyonhjelm for the next how many years? 10,20,50,100? 200? What does that achieve? Nothing.

As my previous post showed, what the person did in question was very well done and required thought. For future protection things (like you asked very well), we really should consider and need to have:

1. Possession of certain information that would assist us all to avoid such an awful event that has occurred at Martin Place;

2. Accordingly, the sharing of that data/details with the public;

3. The ability to appraise ourselves/the general public on reducing or managing our own personal risk in future;

Finally I'm sure there are plenty of other questions like yours that could be sent to the Senator's office or for the Federal Government to have - to reduce or get rid of similar situations of any type, like what occurred in Sydney.

Nathan J,

You can Cornish wrestle all you like but someone with a pistol or any other firearm will nail you before you can say "Boo".

To all, a further point,
never think that a shot gun cannot kill or severely injure at longer ranges,
Number 7 and 1/2 shot will go 250 yards at sea level
4 goes out to 333 yds,
0 buck shot to 600 and 00 to 633 yards.

A 1 oz 12 ga. slug 1,183 yards and a .410 slug to 916 yards.

The danger zones increase the greater the height above sea level.

These are SAAMI test figures.(The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute, USA)http://www.saami.org/

It is further worth remembering that shot from a .410 generally goes as far as shot from a 12 gauge gun, it's just that there is less of it but it hits just as hard

Well I suppose there's another way to look at the issue of a viable means of physical defence in light of the Lindt café incident. There's the issue of providing a safe workplace. And for that matter a safe environment for customers.
In any other case adopting danger mitigating procedures and providing physical danger mitigation apparatus is generally a requirement to avoid liability.
If state laws are preventing the access to viable means of physical defence against an agressive person there may be an argument the state is preventing the provision of a safe workplace.

Hi Rhosty.

Trying to decipher your sarcasm, I think that you are saying that you do not believe in racism, even though you made derogatory racist stereotypes yourself about Southern US whites.

I am a racist like yourself, Rhosty. But I am not racist against white people. I think it is self evident that races and ethnicities are not equal. They are not equal in personalities, physical appearance, physical abilities, or mental abilities either. Some ethnicities are generally more intelligent than others, and some are generally more prone to violent (criminal) behaviour than others. That does not mean that there are no smart and non violent blacks, or no dumb violent whites or Asians prone to criminal behaviour. It just means that whatever proportions of smart to dumb, and non violent to violent, proportions exist within ethnicities, are different.

The racist hypotheses that you and Susieonlike push, is that the reason why blacks communities are universally dysfunctional with very high rates of criminal behaviour, is because white people are racists who discriminate against blacks and keep them in poverty. This does not pan out.

To begin with, as my figures which you refused to comment on pointed out, blacks are far more racist than whites. Maybe you think that blacks are justified in their racist hostility towards whites? But if you think that way, then you have just crossed the Rubicon and admitted that racism can be justifiable.

And if blacks can justify racism, so can whites. White racism and discrimination directed at blacks is justified by the knowledge of whites who live the closest to blacks, that as a group, blacks tend to be very much more violent, hostile, dishonest, and unintelligent, compared to whites and Asians as a group.

And violent groups of any shade produce violent a culture which both illuminates their cultural values and reinforces them. The music of young black males is "gangsta" rap which glorifies criminality, drug abuse, misogyny, and some even sanction the killing of whites and police officers. Their culture is a window to who they are, and how they think.

Sorry LEGO but their culture is no window, but rather who they are and how they think.

Not all that long ago, Australian of the year, Adam Goode, was horribly and shamefully racially vilified by a gormless and incredibly insensitive young white girl!
And for no other reason than this was her inculcated or learned behavior, and the social norm in her family?

The color of your skin doesn't have any bearing on how you behave or react to others!
The content of your character may well do!

I served with some colored folk, and for mine and I dare say, every other man in the unit, they were as white as any other man, braver and smarter than many!

At the end of the day and covered in enough mud, it was impossible to know the difference!

Some of the finest white men I've known were as black as coal! They all bled the same color!

And some of the most brutal and uncivilized I've known, were white militants and pro Nazis; like the former Hitler youth, who beat my sister within an inch of her life!

He died quite young and from a massive heart attack!

Race doesn't decide these things, nor gender, just who taught you and inculcated your accepted customs during your formative years.

In Northern Island the Catholics were Europe's new blacks and so it goes.

South Africa has a similar violent history and selective repression, and all that you see that is wrong in either society, is the entire product of inculcated social norms and that officially sanctioned repression.

Nothing more nothing less.

Guns and dynamite/plastics in either case, just facilitated that behavioral norm!

And poor/less than adequate training produces inadequately trained solders, not racial stereotypes!

You can teach an man to shoot inside three months and march into battle, with a joint between his lips and a Ghetto Blaster on his shoulder; but it takes around three years to produce a professional soldier needing neither!
Rhrosty.

Rhrosty old mate, you picked a bad example there.

Holding up a racist AFL playing thug as some sort of victim is rather strange.

I do get very sick of Europeans with a trace of aboriginal blood in them, claiming they are aboriginal, because it pays. It's rather disgusting.

To make one, & a bully boy at that, Australian of the year just shows how far the ratbag left have got into control of our institutions.

You know about guns and stuff Is Mise so what does it prove? Guns are bad and people should not have them other than Army, and police and special people who protect other people should have them no one else at all I think. People who say a lot about guns are strange? Almost like a sickness, guns kill nothing good about guns. I know everything about guns there is, my life was ruled by guns small guns up to very big guns on trucks, people who lifed near us all family shot by police with guns evil Is Mise?? No more talk on guns unless say they are very bad. My country is Albania Elbasan Albania. You no nothing about guns I know everything about guns, and all the death near my house by police and army police and others people with guns. You no nothing about them because they are very evil and kill many.

Sorry Rhosty, but just like you, I was inculcated by my culture to accept that all races were equal. I accepted without thinking that the reason why some ethnicities are chronically dysfunctional and crime prone, was becasue of white racism and discrimination. I was even an anti apartheid demonstrator against the Springboks.

But as I got older, I realised that those socialists who went on, and on, about the equality of man, were the biggest snobs around. What was more, was that these same people who's worldview I had unthinkingly accepted, reflexively blamed the white race for everything that ever went wrong in the world. I began to realise that they were racist against my race. Once I had comprehended that, I started thinking for myself instead of parroting the slogans of the trendy left.

Australian aborigines have a homicide rate 6 times that of the rest of the population of Australia. They are very disproportionately represented in criminal behaviour. If the entire population of a white town was on the dole or the DSP, if the residents were drunk every dole cheque day, if the uncles were screwing the kids, and the kids would not go to school, and if they bothered to go they did very poorly, and the teachers had to feed the kids because the parents could not bother, and if the police were sick and tired of breaking up family and clan fights, only to have both sets of combatants turn their violence on them, I think that any reasonable person would conclude that the entire population of the town were stupid white trash with low intelligence.

But with aborigines or any other dysfunctional minority group, we can't say that. We have to pretend that there is nothing wrong with them. It is always the white fellas fault.

Bullsheet.

Your belief in the equality of the races is based upon nothing more than peer pressure faith. You have never thought about it. Like every other person of faith, you simply believed without evidence because your momma told you so.

Hasbeen, LEGO
You see, it's impossible to have a discussion with Rhrosty, if you talk about Black crime in the U.S.A he wants to talk about a grown Australian man getting upset because a thirteen year old girl said The word "Ape", Catholicism and South Africa.
Everything Rhrosty believes in is wrong and his posts get swatted down every time but up he comes again like Boppo the clown.

There was no "repression" in Apartheid South Africa, the Nationalist government found a way to stop black crime,it was a much safer country for both Blacks and Whites between 1963 and 1994 than it is now:
http://www.thetruthaboutsouthafrica.com/p/ancs-black-on-black-killing-spree.html
In Summary:
The Apartheid government killed something like 7518 black people during the 46 years of Apartheid. Thus white on black.
The liberation movements were responsible for 13482 politically motivated killings. Thus black on black.
From 1950-1993 south Africa averaged 7,000 murders a year:
http://gunowners.org/fs0304.htm
By contrast there were 16,259 murders in S.A in the 2012/13 financial year:
http://africacheck.org/factsheets/factsheet-south-africas-official-crime-statistics-for-201213/
73 people died in SA police custody from 1963 to 1990:
http://censorbugbear-reports.blogspot.com.au/2013/07/deaths-in-sap-cells-1963-to-1990.html
73 people in a 27-year-period averages out to 2.7 deaths a year.
by 2012 under the ANC-regime, 900+ people died in police custody in just ONE YEAR...
http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2013/03/04/over-900-die-in-south-african-police-custody

Hi there JAY of MELBOURNE...

I've been a bit of a student of South African politics for many years now, and I must truly confess I don't know which way's up or down ? Driven mainly by the fact my paternal grandmother was born in Pretoria, of (white) English parents. Her father was a contracted 'civil servant' to the S.A government, from the UK Govt.? And it's my understanding, she (her father claimed on her behalf) claimed British nationality ? Yet she possessed a South African birth certificate ?

She married my grandfather at the expiration of the Anglo-Boer war. He had come to S.A. with the British Army Contingent, to fight in that war ? By all accounts in those days, he was permitted to 'de-mobilise' in South Africa and they married, and came to Oz about 1904/06, and as they say, lived happily ever after ?

I spent about six weeks over there in 1971, trying to trace the whole nationality business. The then (apartheid) government were most cordial and very helpful indeed, but because of the Boer War (they claimed) some records were either incomplete or mislaid or whatever ? Even though my grandmother would've been 17 or 18 years of age, during the time of the war ? So essentially I came away none the wiser so to speak ?

As a footnote JAY of MELBOURNE...

We travelled everywhere during daylight hours, and periods of darkness. Safety and security were NEVER an issue. I still have friends (very distant relations actually) who say South Africa is a complete basket case and Jacob ZUMA is the most corrupt, and least educated President, on the entire African Continent ! Go figure ? Another resounding illustration of the benefits of self-government ?

Rhodesia is even worse, under the 'part' leadership of that African tyrant, little 'Bobby MUGABE' who parenthetically, is the best educated of all African leaders ? Thank you Malcolm FRASER, you big blundering 'goof' !

Yes o sung wu, those two long streaks of misery, with their heads in the clouds, Whitlam & Fraser both stuck their idealism in where some common sense would have done much more good.

Apart from doing our aborigines a great deal of harm, one effectively destroyed the prospects of generations of Rhodesians, & the other those of Papua New Guineans.

Perhaps we should have a height limit for PMs, although that did not kept the last couple any closer to reality.

< Guns are bad and people should not have them other than Army, and police and
<special people who protect other people should have them no one else at all I think.
<People who say a lot about guns are strange? Almost like a sickness, guns kill nothing
<good about guns. I know everything about guns there is, my life was ruled by guns <small guns up to very big guns on trucks, people who lifed near us all family shot by
<police with guns evil Is Mise?? No more talk on guns unless say they are very bad. My
<country is Albania Elbasan Albania. You no nothing about guns I know everything about
<guns, and all the death near my house by police and army police and others people with
<guns. You no nothing about them because they are very evil and kill many.
Posted by misanthrope, Sunday, 28 December 2014 12:52:58 PM

As an Australian, I do not know what it is like to live in terror, with a constant anxiety about who will die or go missing.

Guns make bullies make worse.

G'day there WOLLY B...

This MISANTHROP has a point I guess ? We all live in relative safety here in OZ so I suppose people from other countries and cultures have an entirely different perspective on F/A's and violence ?

Still if we don't watch ourselves this proliferation of illegal F/A's could well overcome us here, as well ? I hope not I really do !

Hi HASBEEN...

I'm a LNP voter through and through, but Malcolm FRASER was probably the most nauseating of any Prime Minister I can ever remember. On several occasions I drew duty, 'close protection' on the bloke (an elevated threat assessment) not me personally, my entire squad. I've met, and worked for many politicians in my time, but PM FRASER was amongst the rudest, most arrogant of all ! Even for him to return your perfunctory 'good morning sir' was a supreme effort ? And the thought of 'stopping a bullet' for him, well forget it ! Another, not quite as rude, rather indifferent, was John HOWARD, but his wife was very nice no matter how tired she might be ? Mate, I could tell you a few curious yarns about some of these pollies I've had to work with believe me. Most don't have much ability to hold their liquor too well either, which makes observing their behaviour really quite amusing too - if only I had a camera ?

Before closing, I remember 'extracting' a certain high profile Ambassador from a rather ah...? Shall we say, a rather 'sticky situation' ? Had it become allowed to continue, it could've easily caused quite a serious incident ? This individual continued to thank me, over and over again, writing to the Commissioner, sending me photo's of him, his family the whole nine yards ? He was an absolutely fantastic bloke he really was. It's this sort of thing that makes the job worth doing sometimes, and this type of response is all too rare, I'm afraid ?

o sung wu, Sunday, 28 December 2014 5:18:53 PM

I believe once the shearing was done, an other bale of wool containg the dags were sent from a certain, farm by a certain person.

Rhosty, I agree with most of what you're saying here, but you're wrong on one point:
"Not all that long ago, Australian of the year, Adam Goode, was horribly and shamefully racially vilified by a gormless and incredibly insensitive young white girl!"
That is untrue.

He wasn't horribly and shamefully vilified. He wasn't vilified at all. He was insulted. The insult was based on his physical appearance, and he took offence because he wrongly assumed it to be racially motivated, but in reality the girl wasn't even aware of his race.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Jay, crack cocaine was a huge problem before crystal meth was even invented, and the slowness of the latter to catch on means that it's a relatively recent problem, whereas communities torn apart by crack have been dysfunctional for decades. Also the rural areas are less conducive to the formation of gangs than the high density urban areas.

It's hard to take you seriously when you make such absurd claims as "there was no repression in apartheid South Africa". Being a police state that oppresses the majority of the population was not an effective way to control black crime (it almost provoked a revolution) and resulted in many people regarding the police as their enemies, which was a major cause of the crime problem that RSA still has.

Differences between racial groups are minuscule compared to differences within racial groups, and certainly don't justify discrimination.

An observation on South Africa; one of the news films taken at Soweto shews the European police firing their pistols over the heads of the crowd and the Zulu policemen firing carefully aimed shots from their .455" Mk VI Webley revolvers into the crowd.

misanthrope,

I do know a bit about guns and I'm wearing Department of Veterans' Affairs shoes, DVA support stockings, have a DVA back support belt (for when I need it), DVA spectacles and DVA hearing aids, and a DVA Gold Card for medical benefits and a visit once every six weeks to a podiatrist; my home was partly paid for by a Defence Services Home Loan and I receive a Service Pension.

Why do I have all of these things, besides a chest full of medals (Australian on the left breast and a Foreign one on the right)?

Because I've been there and done that, both in the Australian Army and a Foreign one, had good mates shot and wounded beside me and my Australian Army Discharge Certificate states, under marks and scars, "....circular gun shot wound, lower angle of the left jaw".
I am returned from Active Service and wear the Blue Beret of the UN on appropriate occasions.

Hello,

An opinion page I found re the Senator's remarks - has good links and comments:

http://theaimn.com/i-wont-be-carrying-a-gun-and-i-dont-want-you-to-either/

One person highlighted shocking links to violence in the U.S involving weapons (like one incident at a cinema).

1. The article link: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/01/14/us/florida-man-is-shot-to-death-for-texting-during-movie-previews.html?referrer=&_r=0

2. Comments from U.S citizens re the article: http://mobile.nytimes.com/comments/2014/01/14/us/florida-man-is-shot-to-death-for-texting-during-movie-previews.html (over 500)

Finally as one person pointed out (in general), "Those who don't have guns or other weapon types for protection, they will be the real victims, if the proposals like the Senator are proposing were to go ahead."

That being those with "protection" will be O.K and those "without" will not - lets say like a child walking home from school - or would the Senator have weapons placed in their school bags?

Yes, Nathan...but never fear..the good old US always comes up with a solution to protect the kiddies from that gun-toting country's "freedoms".

Behold! - the "Bodyguard Blanket".

http://www.smh.com.au/world/bodyguard-blanket-the-latest-bulletproof-product-to-protect-us-students-during-school-shootings-20140610-zs2wk.html

"An Oklahoma company has created a bulletproof blanket that children can wear like a backpack to shield themselves in the case of a school shooting.

The Bodyguard Blanket, which costs $1000, is the latest body armour product targeted at school students in the United States, where parents and schools can already buy bulletproof jackets, backpacks, and whiteboards.

Gun-control lobby groups say there were at least 44 school shootings in the US - an average of more than three a month - between December 2012 and February 10, 2014."

"According to the makers, the students can put the blankets on their back and line-up in the hallway to "develop a shield like the Romans and Greeks used to lock together".

The blanket is advertised as military-grade and able to provide protection against 90 per cent of the weapons that have been used in school shootings. It is made from high-density ballistic-resistant plastic and has straps which children can clip around them to have "head-to-toe defence".

The developers say the blanket has passed the National Institute of Justice 3A Test, which is used to test body armour for police, and means it can protect people against projectiles including bullets from a 9mm, a 12-gauge buckshot and a .22-calibre gun.

Other "school safety" bulletproof products on the market include panels that can be inserted into backpacks, clipboards that can absorb "multiple magazines of ammunition from handguns or shotguns" and "peel-n-stick door armour"."

In the 21st century, this is how American schoolkids face their day....

To Poirot.

My own high school at Moore Park, Sydney, had an armoury where we had 100 Mark III, Lee Enfield rifles, and four Bren light machine guns. We also shot Lee Enfield's that had been re barrelled to .22 calibre on the school's rifle range. After taking our .303 rifles home on the bus after shooting at Malabar, we would saunter into class on Monday mornings with our rifles, and stack them against the class room wall. But there were no school shootings. Kids did not kill kids because we knew right from wrong.

For fifty years, our entertainment media has been given license to change the cultural values of western people, from the generally peaceful and law abiding one of the North European Protestants, to a more violent one more appropriate to Islamic, Hispanic, or black societies. Our media has bombarded our kids, some of whom are poorly socialised, immature, and with borderline personality disorders, with the idea that men who can do incredibly violent acts to revenge themselves for personal problems, are men to be admired. And these men are sexually attractive to gorgeous females.

The media has created movies and pop songs which validate misogyny, glamourise the suicide of schoolchildren in class, advocated drug abuse, admired graffiti, and promoted criminal gang membership, as well as promoting the idea that criminals lead exciting and glamourous lives. We have then created computer games showing kids how much fun it is to steal cars, rape women, deal drugs, and shoot people down in large numbers.

Here in NSW, there have been three homicides, or attempted homicides, involving schoolchildren as victims and perpetrators. One involved the shooting death of a schoolboy by another schoolboy in the Arab area of Sydney, which the NSW Police call "the Gaza Strip." Another occurred on the Central Coast, when a high school boy shot and wounded his ex girlfriend with a crossbow. The last occurred on the North Coast, when a schoolboy emulated the bullied teen on the pop video "Jeremy" (Pearl Jam) and committed suicide in class using a sawn off shotgun.

misanthrope you say you know everything about guns because you've seen "all the death near my house by police and army police and others people with guns." Straight after saying "Guns are bad and people should not have them other than Army, and police and special people who protect other people should have them no one else at all I think."
Curious logic misanthrope. Albanian logic perhaps..

My interpretation of what you say is Albania's a nation of victims because criminals uniformed and freelance have guns and everybody else is vulnerable.
Well that's the situation we're in right now. Only way to fix it is to restore a natural balance. That's what David Leyonhjelm's talking about.

By the way I grew up in Tasmania where every second house had firearms and other than pistol licencing there were no controls on ownership of firearms at all and police didn't carry sidearms. And supprise supprise there were no problems at all. Now police look like soldiers, criminals are carrying firearms and everyone else is heavily restricted from owning arms. And holy cow now people are seeing armed hold ups and neighbors being shot by police. Go figure.

Just had a couple more shooting incidents in Sydney, one dead.

Safer Australia in action!

One wonders why, as our Firearm Registries are based on the Canadian model of the time, why we are not still following Canada's lead?

Did you know that under the Uniform National Firearm Laws if a woman wears a cartridge belt with chrome plated fired cases in it as a fashion accessory in NSW it is just a weird bit of fashion but in Western Australia it is a criminal offence as WA doesn't allow the possession of fired cartridge cases without the appropriate licence.

On the upside Is Mise we can take comfort in the knowlege we're helping the rest of the world by being the example increasingly used to show what not to do.

It's a fact. Australian gun laws along with the UKs are held up as examples of failed experiments.

I'm not sure we can blame the media completely LEGO, there has always been violence in movies, & in TV when it came along.

I guess Tom Mix, & Hopalong Cassidy, & the marshal in Gunsmoke did manage to shoot the gun out of the bad guys hand, rather than kill, but my cowboy suit came with a holster & cap pistol after all. Perhaps we were better at differentiating reality back then.

Yes the shoot them up cop shows must have an effect, but I think our changed culture has more to do with it.

In the 50/60s there were punch-ups behind the pub, with the crowd ensuring a fair fight. King hit/cowards punch types would quickly have their attitude corrected. Stabbing & glassing were unheard of.

I think some of the change came with mass migration in the 50/60s, but then accelerated greatly with different ethnic migration in the last couple of decades.

What would have once been despised as a cowardly act, has progressively penetrated into the old culture. Of course, the growth of profitability of criminal enterprises could also have more than a little effect.

I don't think you can rule out population pressure as part of the problem either.

As for victims, last night some fool woman was raving on TV that they had banned the sale of raw milk, & how clever they were. All they have done is make victims of dairy farmers, & people who don't want to buy their milk from Coles. She was so proud of herself, stupid cow. Our lack of private weapons will kill many more than a few bottles of contaminated raw milk.

G'day IS MISE...

I can see MISANTHROPE has annoyed you a bit, I wouldn't let him/her worry you, it's just his/her opposition to 'ALL' F/A's is all, and whatever occurred in Albania I guess ?

I'm probably wrong, you were with 3 RAR in Korea perhaps ? They received the US Distinguished Unit Citation for Kapyong. I notice you blokes wear the famous Blue Beret, symbol of the United Nations Forces too. The Aussies were very highly regarded for their Korean War record. I notice you stated you wore a 'foreign award' on your right side, as well as your Aussie gongs on your left ? That's what gave me the clue I suppose ?

On the other hand us Vietnam Vets copped heaps both while over there and upon our return. All we got when we came home was a mouthful of abuse and accusations of being murderers etc. Still time does tend to heal most wounds, not all mind you, but most ? Take it easy IS MITE, and don't let that bloke/women upset you OK ?

Remember IS MISE, you have 'NOTHING' to prove ! It's up to others now, to prove themselves !

Hasbeen
"As for victims, last night some fool woman was raving on TV that they had banned the sale of raw milk, & how clever they were. All they have done is make victims of dairy farmers, & people who don't want to buy their milk from Coles. She was so proud of herself, stupid cow. Our lack of private weapons will kill many more than a few bottles of contaminated raw milk."
No dairy farmer is damaged by banning the sale of raw milk, and there are plenty of shops other than Coles which sell milk. Our lack of private weapons will save orders of magnitude more people than it will kill. And I see nothing wrong with restricting the sale of a harmful product that has recently resulted in the death of a child.

Having said that, I think raw milk cheesemaking should be permitted, but strictly licenced with every batch tested before it can be sold.

Hi Hasbeen.

Let's look at a successful, non violent society and see how they did it.

England attained the lowest homicide rate ever recorded by any industrialised society (0.5 per 100,000) even though firearms laws were almost non existent until 1930.

This great achievement was caused by strict censorship and a socially responsible English media. In all of their novels, movies, newspapers, dramas and radio plays, violent criminals were portrayed the way that every prison officer and police officer will tell you that they really are. Weak, impulsive, selfish, morally bankrupt, and not real bright. What violent role models the English media produced were men like Wellington, Biggles, Fighter Command pilots, Robin Hood, TE Lawrence, Baden Powell, and Sherlock Holmes. These role models were portrayed as the quintessential Englishmen, loyal,. adventurous, brave, and with impeccable manners. They were dismissive of danger by means of an understated sense of humour and "a stiff upper lip."

Violence committed by these men was never on a personal level, but only on behalf of the King, the Parliament, or the Empire. These role models were idolised by generations of adolescent boys, and they nurtured a recognisable national character of the English gentleman, that was not only admired by Britain's friends, but even by Britain's enemies.

But today this powerful social controller has been reversed. The Hollywood inspired movies of today portray armed robbers, drug traffickers, hired murderers, and criminal gang members as action movie heroes and macho men. Their on screen behaviour depicted as cool behaviour, provides inspirational scripts for the behaviour of emotionally immature young men who are not real bright and prone to violent behaviour.

"Action" movies usually involve a hero who is a loner misfit who tasks control of a dangerous situation by ignoring all laws and hitting back violently at his tormentors. This attracts the attention of female of high quality breeding material. These movies are actually engineered to appeal to young, indolent and emotionally immature young men, who may harbour resentments that they are powerles to act upon. The same sort of person most likely to emulate the behaviour.

Hi Hasbeen.

Let's look at a successful, non violent society and see how they did it.

England attained the lowest homicide rate ever recorded by any industrialised society (0.5 per 100,000) even though firearms laws were almost non existent until 1930.

This great achievement, was caused by strict censorship and a socially responsible English media. In all English novels, movies, newspapers, dramas, and radio plays, violent criminals were portrayed the way that every prison officer and police officer will tell you that they really are. Weak, impulsive, selfish, morally bankrupt, and not real bright. What violent role models the English media produced were men like Wellington, Biggles, Fighter Command pilots, Robin Hood, TE Lawrence, Baden Powell, and Sherlock Holmes. These role models were portrayed as the quintessential Englishmen, loyal,. adventurous, brave, smart,and with impeccable manners. They were dismissive of danger by means of an understated sense of humour and "a stiff upper lip."

Violence committed by these men was never on a personal level, but only on behalf of the King, the Parliament, or the Empire. These role models, idolised by generations of adolescent boys, nurtured a recognisable national character of the English gentleman, that was not only admired by Britain's friends, but oddly enough, even by Britain's enemies.

But today this powerful social controller has been reversed. The Hollywood inspired movies of today portray armed robbers, drug traffickers, hired murderers, and criminal gang members as action movie heroes and macho men. Their on screen behaviour, depicted as cool, provides inspirational scripts for the behaviour of emotionally immature young men who are not real bright, and prone to violent behaviour.

"Action" movies usually involve a hero who is a loner misfit, who tasks control of a dangerous situation by ignoring all laws and hitting back violently at his tormentors. This attracts the attention of female of high quality breeding material. These movies are actually engineered to appeal to young, sedentary, powerless, and emotionally immature young men. The same sort of person most likely to emulate the violence because he thinks it is admirable behaviour.

o sung wu,

He didn't upset me, I just decided to tell him that there were others around who'd seen a bit of nastiness but didn't blame it on 'tools of trade'.
Yes, I was 3RAR but was in the battalion after Kapyong and bloody glad that I wasn't there!!
I had quite a few mates who were though and their experiences in that battle were hair raising.
By the time of Vietnam I was a civvy in the Dept of Defence but working in RAEME and a lot of the time in support of the boys in Vietnam.
Before most Units left we used to give their SLRs and M60s a thorough rebuild so that reliability was near 100% as could be got.

Most people will never realize the deep hurt that Vietnam Veterans suffered at the hands of those that engineered the hostile reception that many of them got when they came home.

Dear Aidan,

<<I think raw milk cheesemaking should be permitted, but strictly licenced with every batch tested before it can be sold.>>

So now I should thank you, thank you, thank you, for your gracious permit...

Who are you and that government of yours in the first place to tell us what we may or may not drink or eat?

I never asked them to protect me: my life is my own and whether I live or die is none of their business!

Yuyutsu,
<<So now I should thank you, thank you, thank you, for your gracious permit...>>
Absolutely not! I'm not suggesting arbitrary granting of licences for making raw milk cheese, but rather licencing depending on the ability to comply with predetermined conditions.

<<Who are you and that government of yours in the first place to tell us what we may or may not drink or eat?>>
I am an Australian citizen and have a right to free speech.
The government are the people Australians have elected to make laws.

<<I never asked them to protect me: my life is my own and whether I live or die is none of their business!>>
But when the lives of children are involved, it does become the government's business.

<Who are you and that government of yours in the first place to tell us what we may or
<may not drink or eat?

<I never asked them to protect me: my life is my own and whether I live or die is none of
<<their business!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 29 December 2014 11:31:00 PM

Yuyutsu, in this country as with other western or first world countries, governments have certain laws applying the hygiene standard for food and beverages.

Such laws are there to protect, the consumer (that means you as well) from being poisoned or made unwell from contaminated food products.

These same governments also protect or attempt to protect us from unsafe medicines.

Look at what happened in China with the baby formula scandals and the deaths of many babies.

<I never asked them to protect me: my life is my own and whether I live or die is none of
<<their business!

Firstly that is an incredibly narcissistic and self centred way to live your life. All societies require some degree of compliance from its citizens to follow the rules and regulations of that society.

So it doesn't matter if it is China, Malaysia or Australia there will be rules and regulations to follow. Some are determined by the government and others by the village or town or your own family circle.

Hi there IS MISE...

And we really appreciated the dedicated re-builds you blokes did for us, with the SLR'S and the M60's ! Both were excellent weapons, the latter was very much appreciated during a serious 'contact'.

The only problem with the M60's was those damnable 'cook off's' you'd get when the barrel got too hot and failed to feed properly. Nevertheless it sure kept their little heads down, as well as frightening all manner of wildlife from the trees and underbrush ! And as you'd know, we all carried extra belts for the gun, as it sure chewed through the rounds at around 600/650 rpm. ?

All seems a long time ago now, as would the Korean War would be for you too ? Times are changing also, as is the Army too I expect. Still they can't take away our memories or sully our service, no matter how hard they may try ?

Thanks mate for looking after our munitions (weapons). Only those who served in a Rifle Company, would recognise just how much we all owed and appreciated you blokes, who kept our weapons functioning at 100% ! Without your dedication and skill, some of us might not be still around to talk about it ?

Dear Aidan,

<<I am an Australian citizen and have a right to free speech.>>

Indeed, you are entitled to say whatever you like, although that has nothing to do with your citizenship.

<<The government are the people Australians have elected to make laws.>>

Now that's cynical propaganda. We all know that the Australian electoral system is anything but democratic.

...But it doesn't really matter because even if Australia were democratic it would still have no moral right to impose its laws over those who never consented to be under its constitution to begin with.

<<But when the lives of children are involved, it does become the government's business.>>

Now here is a thought you may want to sleep over:

Why specifically should it be the Australian government's business?
Why not the Danish or the Russian government's?
Why not Google's or NewsCorp's or the Bank of America's?
Aren't they bigger and stronger?

Once you accept in principle that someone else could have the right to decide what's best for my and your children, then why specifically the politicians of the Australian government? Why not, say, the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him?

---

Dear Wolly,

<<Such laws are there to protect, the consumer (that means you as well) from being poisoned or made unwell from contaminated food products.>>

Isn't this the common claim of Mafia's when demanding that I pay them for "protecting" my business despite the fact that I never required that protection of theirs?

<<So it doesn't matter if it is China, Malaysia or Australia there will be rules and regulations to follow. Some are determined by the government and others by the village or town or your own family circle.>>

Nothing new about bullying. That it's been around for thousand of years doesn't make it any more right. Nevertheless, bullying on such a big scale, encompassing a whole continent, is almost unprecedented and never before did such bullying entities cover the whole face of the earth. When the scale was smaller (village/town/family), if I had enough I could at least pack up and walk to the next valley.

Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 30 December 2014 1:04:06 PM

So you choose to extrapolate and make comparisons between the mafia and government health and food inspectors.

One of the main reasons the majority of people in the first world enjoy the benefits of good health is because of rules and regulations developed over the decades.

Education needs to be included as well.

Reliable power and water, safe roads and public transport.

Dear Yuyutsu,

<<Now that's cynical propaganda. We all know that the Australian electoral system is anything but democratic.>>
On the contrary, we know the opposite. 'Tis probably the most democratic in the world, though I'm willing to be swayed by a counterexample if you can find one.

What we know is that however good our electoral system is, it still gets bad results because of misinformation supplied to the voters. Better information typically benefits people more than a better electoral system, but no country has ever had to choose between the two. At least we're more fortunate than the Poms who have even more misinformation and an electoral system that's scarcely even democratic.

<<Now here is a thought you may want to sleep over:>>
Do you mean a dumb question intended to send me to sleep?

<<Why specifically should it be the Australian government's business?>>
Because it occurs in Australia. If it occurred in Denmark than it would be the Danish government's business; in Russia the Russian government's business, etc.

<<Why not Google's or NewsCorp's or the Bank of America's?>>
They're free to try to make it their business if they want, but they do not and never will have the power to enforce laws.

For those of you following at home , who haven't turn due to the utter racist on the site, here is an example of why firearms should not be allowed to be carried.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-31/toddler-shoots-kills-mother-at-walmart/5993946

By that logic cornonacob we shouldn't have cars either because sometimes drivers crash them.

But, as I said in an earlier post I'd consider carrying a gun around fairly tedious and more of a worry than anything else. You'd nearly have to keep one in a shoulder holster to know it's out of the way. I don't like carrying a wallet and now we somehow can't go anywhere without our phones as well so the thought of adding a gun to the list makes me very sleepy.
Still it should be up to the individual to choose what makes them feel safer.

When you consider the hundreds of thousands or more who regularly carry guns in the US the incidence of accidents like the one in cornonacobs link are very rare indeed. This one a freak accident resulting from the stupidity of leaving a loaded handgun in a handbag in reach of a toddler. No doubt news media will report this incident far and wide and it'll serve to remind those who carry guns to keep them secure.

Very rare indeed, jamo? ITYF they're far more common than what happened in Sydney!

Carrying a pistol is a nuisance; in the days of leather shoulder holsters one had to have dedicated white shirts that one only wore with a jacket because of the stains from the holster.
When I first carried I wore a front draw shoulder holster but because of the shirt issue and the fact that one could not take the coat off if the weather turned hot, made me opt for a cross draw belt holster; on hot days the pistol could be concealed by the coat across the left arm.

However as I possess the right under our laws to protect myself from unlawful attack then I also possess the right to have some means of protection, but that right, if exercised, will make me a criminal.

I'm now 80+ years old so don't stand much chance against a 20 yo attacker but my ever loving Government and the Greens say that I shouldn't possess anything for the purpose of self defence.

Indeed Is Mise.

Comes down to whether you prefer to be judged by twelve or carried by six.

Damned if you do and dead if you don't. Better to be damned and alive than the other option.

Dear Aidan,

I'm not really keen on democracy, but since you asked, let me explain why Australia isn't democratic:

The basic idea of democracy is "one man, one vote". Originally, all 5000 citizens met in the town-square and wrote their selections on each given issue on ceramic shards, which were then collected and counted and each issue was decided by the majority.

As the number of citizens grew (but before the advent of the internet), it became impractical to gather all citizens and so representative-democracy was invented. This is a step down from democracy, but OK, at least everyone has someone to represent them in the assembly.

But is this the case in Australia? While we don't get to vote on the issues in person, can we at least appoint someone to represent us in parliament? Certainly not! People cannot send their representatives - only electoral districts can, which are an arbitrary collection of people that cannot even be chosen by the citizens themselves.

According to the Australian electoral system, representatives may only represent ONE electoral district, so if the only candidate whose views are similar to mine happens to be a candidate of another district, then I am left with no one to represent me.

Thus, the division into electoral districts perpetuate the two-party system, none of which is likely to represent more than a handful of citizens. Nobody else has a real practical chance to be voted. Such a choice is akin to being "freely" allowed to decide whether to shop in Coles or in Woolworth.

Moreover, if I happen to live in a "marginal" district, then my vote has a small chance to be effective, but my neighbour across the street may happen to live in another district which is "safe", thus their vote is worthless. Can you call this "one man, one vote"?

The Roman democracy was obviously faulty because women and slaves could not vote, but also because only men who owned property could vote. In Australia, it is only people who own (or rent) property in the "right" districts who can effectively vote.

Dear Aidan,

<<Because it occurs in Australia. If it occurred in Denmark than it would be the Danish government's business; in Russia the Russian government's business, etc.>>

And the logic is?

If the Australian government knows best about what's good for children, better than their parents and better than the Russian government, then it should know what's best for ALL children, wherever they are, but if the Danish government knows better, then shouldn't they be the ones to make that determination?

With such logic, why not for example, should it be the business of those whose eye-colour is the same as the child's?

Fortunately you explained your logic in the next sentence, when I asked "Why not Google"?

You answered:

<<They're free to try to make it their business if they want, but they do not and never will have the power to enforce laws.>>

Now the cat is out of the bag: governments make it their business to control other people's children for the sole reason that they have power. They have the guns, so they do and dictate what they want. I have just written about Mafia and bullying and you have fully confirmed it.

Yuyutsu,

<<Now the cat is out of the bag: governments make it their business to control other people's children for the sole reason that they have power. They have the guns, so they do and dictate what they want. I have just written about Mafia and bullying and you have fully confirmed it.>>
Governments have the power because the people have given it to them. You might think other people's children dying from easily preventable actions done in pursuit of totally illusory benefits is preferable to governments having the power, but fortunately most people do not share your evil indifference.

It's time to demolish your ivory tower and return to the real world!

Dear Aidan,

<<Governments have the power because the people have given it to them.>>

"The people" means ALL people, but I haven't given them any such power and there are many others, including in this forum who haven't done so either.

Now even if I were to give the power to someone else, why of all things would it necessarily be the Australian government (an evil and illegitimate body in itself)? Why not the Danish government for example or Google perhaps? What for example if I believe that the latter are more unbiased and capable than the former to tell between right and wrong?

<<You might think other people's children dying from easily preventable actions done in pursuit of totally illusory benefits is preferable to governments having the power>>

What I think is that the judgement of governments is severely flawed. Yes, occasionally they could get it right just like a stopped clock shows the correct time twice a day, but they are very liable to determine that things that are right are wrong, or still worse, to know that what I do is right, but prevent me anyway because it's against their vested interests.

According to your logic, if children in Denmark die from what you believe are easily preventable actions and the Danish government doesn't do anything about it, then it's your government's duty to invade Denmark in order to save those children. Obviously the Australian government must know better than the Danish...

Any idiot who cuts off the worst, is liable to also cut off the best: Had Jesus walked today in Australia, then the Australian government would crucify him again (oops, politically-incorrect, out-of-fashion: it would lock him up instead in a mental-institution and pump debilitating drugs into his bloodstream).

<<but fortunately most people do not share your evil indifference.>>

Fortunately most people do not share you evil indifference about this involuntary body which forcibly controls a whole continent, exercising violent powers against all that continent's inhabitants, including those who never wanted anything to do with it.

Hi there YUYUTSU...

Wow you sure get right down to it hey ? '...the Australian government, an evil and illegitimate body in itself...' ? In some respects, you'd get no argument with me on that statement.

'An illegitimate body', no I don't think so, considering they were voted in by our existing electoral process, flawed as it may be ? However if you're speaking figuratively or allegorically well I'd probably have to agree with you ! Our existing LNP government seem to be 'again' smitten with this awful political paralysis, even inertia, call it what you will ?

They're like wildlife dazzled by the bright lights of an approaching vehicle speeding toward them, in the dead of night ?

We've heard just this morning, members of this awful ISIL movement, have returned back to their Sydney homes having acquitted themselves admirably, whilst fighting in Syria !

We're told our government can't do anything, 'blink' 'blink' ostensibly, 'cause they can't make the existing law(s) retrospective (ex post facto) ? Any decent AG worth his salt (with support) could establish a pretty good prima facia brief against them with something surely ? At least find some evidence of an inculpatory kind, they've acted illegally whilst in Syria ? Even by pursuing the relevant provisions of the 'old reliable' Tarpaulin Act, certainly in the fullness of time at least !

More I think about what you say, the more I agree with you YUYUTSU !

Good arguments here on both sides of the gun debate! There is a clear logic arguing that the more guns in society, the greater the risk of guns being used as weapons. This is reflected in US statistics showing that gun homicides are at a much higher per capita rate than in countries where guns are restricted. At the same time there is a counter argument. Australia is a culture, historically, where male on male violence has not been taken seriously by politicians and the justice system. Until recently, if a stronger, more athletic man intentionally king-hit and killed a weaker man, the perpetrator could be given a minimum of only 4 years in prison. The message is clear in Aus that weaker men are not valued in this country. When compared to the USA, their sentences for assault are 2-4 times as long as here in Australia. It is so bad that men do not even bother reporting assaults in many parts of Australia. Also, the rate of assault in Australia and the UK where gun ownership laws are very strict, is much higher than in the US, where gun ownership is universal. This is very likely due to favourable gun laws in the US. In the US, a yob with a lust for violence will think twice about assaulting a weaker man because the weaker man could have a gun and US law allows the victim to use it in self-defense. The argument then would be that if Australians were allowed to carry personal fire-arms, there could be increased gun violence but there will certainly be less gratuitous violence because the yobs will think twice about beating somebody to pulp. Anyone who has worked in the casualty dept of a major city hospital in Aus will have witnessed the real extent of violence in this country whether alcohol fueled or not. The US has very strict laws about the unlawful discharge of guns. It is no longer the wild west. It also appears to be a country where ordinary decent men are valued as human beings.

Factseeker, "There is a clear logic arguing that the more guns in society, the greater the risk of guns being used as weapons."

No, it is a fallacy. From Wikipedia, "Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises. In a non sequitur, the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion.

Factseeker, "This is reflected in US statistics showing that gun homicides are at a much higher per capita rate than in countries where guns are restricted."

No again, this time you are making up your 'facts'.

Factseeker, "At the same time there is a counter argument. Australia is a culture, historically, where male on male violence has not been taken seriously by politicians and the justice system."

Say what?! You are making up your 'facts' again.

That covers your first three sentences, so rather than waste more minutes of my life I will leave it there.

Onthebeach,
The comments here do not have to use 'formal logic' to make a case. This is not about expounding mathematical proofs. It is about opinion and logical argument. Rather than reading Wikipedia, go to the oxford dictionary and find the definition of the word 'logic' or 'logical'. The sense most people use the word 'logical' is as a synonym for 'plausible'. Then read what I have written again. As the saying goes "When you point to the moon, the fool looks at your finger".

Factseeker and onthebeach,

Is the logic of the argument really not clear to you? When someone, even momentarily, wants to use a weapon, more guns means there's a greater chance that that's what they'll use.

Of course just because it's logical doesn't mean it's correct, as there could be other overriding effects. However the big drop in gun crime (and the even bigger drop in gun suicides) in Australia since the Howard government's gun laws were enacted suggests that it is correct.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Yuyutsu,

<<According to your logic, if children in Denmark die from what you believe are easily preventable actions and the Danish government doesn't do anything about it, then it's your government's duty to invade Denmark in order to save those children. Obviously the Australian government must know better than the Danish...>>
That's not my logic. For a start, my logic would acknowledge that war has much too high a cost for it to even be considered, and would also acknowledge that such changes can be brought about peacefully. And if we know better than them, why don't they know what we know? It's probably one of the first things that can be remedied.

As for why it should be the Australian government that power is given to, it's because there are procedures to keep the Australian government accountable to the Australian people. Imperfect procedures, but procedures nonetheless. Now I don't know if you're just trolling or you really do prefer anarchy. But if it's the latter, then I have one thing to say to you: FOAD!

I don't think I've ever said that to anyone before, but if you really want to destroy the conditions where civilisation can thrive, and replace it with a darwinian situation of survival of the best armed, I really don't think there's anything useful that you can contribute here.

Well I thought some of the points raised by Factseeker make sense.
Indeed man on man violence doesn't attract the attention male on female violence does. This we know. However I'm not so sure it doesn't get reported as much because penalties are lenient. Humiliation of defeat would have more to do with it. That and the very male thing of not wanting to be seen to 'cry like a girl'. Such is the tragic effect of bullying.
And I agree the potential agressor would be considerably deterred if the prey may posess the means to retailiate. That's just natural. Predators always seek the weakest prey.
Deterrence is the issue. We all know official methods of deterrence mostly only frighten law abiding types and real predators operating at a more basic level will only be deterred by direct physical threat.

IMO the political forces determined to see us all disempowered and vulnerable are quite happy the way things are. I believe the public safety claim of disarmament is only a partial truth. The want to impose upon others is closer to the core of it. We're constantly lectured about 'equality' but when it comes to possessing the means to achieve physical equality the opposition become very determined. A glimpse into that mindset was provided by Adrian in response to Yuyutsu above "your evil indifference." and "It's time to demolish your ivory tower"

Dear Aidan,

<<my logic would acknowledge that war has much too high a cost for it to even be considered>>

So fighting with Denmark is too expensive because they too have guns, but fighting with helpless individuals is cheap enough!

<<and would also acknowledge that such changes can be brought about peacefully>>

So you would rather have peace with Denmark, but not with individuals who hold different beliefs than yours!

<<if we know better than them, why don't they know what we know?>>

"We"? Who are you including? Not me of course and not many of other forum members. Who authorised you to use that word and who told you that you know better? Was it the archangel Gabriel perchance who dictated it to you in a cave?

<<As for why it should be the Australian government that power is given to, it's because there are procedures to keep the Australian government accountable to the Australian people.>>

Again, who authorised you to use the word 'the'? In theory, though unrealistic, the Australian government is accountable to SOME of its citizens, those who form a majority - certainly not to all, hence you cannot use the word 'the'. Even then, in practice, should a majority of Australians say "we want no government any longer", do you believe that they would just willingly go home?

<<or you really do prefer anarchy.>>

It depends what you mean by "anarchy": the literal meaning is that nobody rules over another, which is certainly better than the current situation were some rule over others without their consent.

However, my real preference is to have societies that are constructed by choice, whose constitutions are pre-agreed by all their members without violence, fraud or coercion. There is even no reason why such constitutions could not include some form of rule, but then it would be by consent.

Though theoretically such voluntary societies can be of any size, they are most likely to be much smaller than today's artificial and unjust construct of "nations", which chains together different unrelated people who have little in common.

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<if you really want to destroy the conditions where civilisation can thrive>>

So it is your desire to have a civilisation and you have no second thought about achieving your desire by violence, injuring those who do not agree with you or your version of "civilisation".

If having a civilisation is so great that others also want to have it, then they don't need to be coerced into it!

<<and replace it with a darwinian situation of survival of the best armed>>

You blindly fail to see that what you describe is the existing situation: the best armed today is the government - and they would kill anyone in order to survive.

What I suggest on the other hand, is non-violence. This does not mean that a society cannot defend itself against those who want to harm its members, but it does mean that no society may impose its laws over others who never consented to belong to it.

<<I really don't think there's anything useful that you can contribute here.>>

Finally you wrote something true! I wonder whether you are able to think at all.

Aidan, "When someone, even momentarily, wants to use a weapon, more guns means there's a greater chance that that's what they'll use"

Those who commit crimes and use weapons vastly prefer the silence and easy concealment offered by blunt trauma, eg the cut-off baseball bat. Knives are popular too for threats, inflicting harm as a penalty and for murder as the final resort.

The main point though is that while almost anything can be used as a weapon, it is the offender who makes that choice as a secondary consideration having already decided to offend. It is nonsense to suggest that the weapon is responsible for the crime. The availability of a motor vehicle would be number 1 on the offender's list of necessary kit. It is obvious why. So what about 'tighter' tests to obtain and hold a vehicle licence?

Criminals commit as many crimes and for as long as they escape detection. It is the certainty of detection and arrest that might deter them, not the lack of the 'gangsta' guns they prefer and get in by the container load.

Aiden, "however the big drop in gun crime (and the even bigger drop in gun suicides) in Australia since the Howard government's gun laws were enacted suggests that it is correct"

Horses' apples, the numbers were trending down before Howard and continued the same without any appreciable effect from Howard's wasteful buy-back and 'gun control' populism that didn't affect criminals one iota.

Suicide
The most popular method by far is hanging, the rope. Ban ropes?

In Australia, firearms were never popular for suicide. You say that in Australia the very small numbers who suicided by firearm dropped. What you don't admit because it is inconvenient, is that overall suicide rate was unaffected. The very few who might have used a firearm were undeterred and used another method.

You need to focus on the whys of suicide and not the method.