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



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > It’s time to review Australia’s gun control laws > Comments

It’s time to review Australia’s gun control laws : Comments

By Stuart Horrex, published 16/1/2015

We need stronger gun control measures, not more people with guns.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
You know immediately that Stuart Horrix is an eastern suburbs, ABC luvvie, when he writes a 2000 word article about how to solve Australia's terrorism problem, without mentioning the word "Islam" at all.

The problem which Stuart thinks we are too stupid to figure out, is that most of the gun crime in Sydney involves already illegal handguns in the hands of mostly Muslim men, who's primary pastime in Sydney appears to be shooting other Muslim men. According to the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics, in the year 2000, 55% of the handgun shootings in the entire state of NSW occurred within the precincts of two notorious Muslim ghettoes (Canterbury-Bankstown) and (Fairfield-Cabramatta). Gee Stuart, who lives there? You can't blame the Aussies for that, Stuart, they fled those suburbs in terror of the people that you wish to import, long ago.

No matter how good a job Stuart does whitewashing the ethnic component to serious crime, his ilk are not yet in the position to airbrush history. And Australia's history, Stuart, reveals that Australia's crime rate was at it's lowest when there was almost no firearm laws at all. Things began to change in the early seventies. The White Australia Policy was discarded by Labor's Gough Whitlam, and this led to a serious reduction of immigrants from Northern Europe, who knew how to behave themselves. It also led to the and the importation of people from cultures who have always been a problem in every society they have immigrated to.

It also coincided with the liberalisation of Australia's entertainment censorship laws, so that now our boys are educated to understand that real men are violent men, who kill people without remorse. They are taught that criminals are really heroes who lead adventurous and exciting lives with great cars, plenty of money, and fabulously sexy girlfriends. And the pop music industry seems to have become the official advertising arm of the illegal drug industry. Movies, songs and videoclips extol drugs and the drug lifestyle, while you can not be an immortal pop star unless you die of a drug overdose
Posted by LEGO, Friday, 16 January 2015 5:54:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The following link is to the Australian Institute of Criminology data showing that homocide by firearm in Australia, monitored by the institute since the early 1990s, has declined since that time. The spike in 1996 indicates that the sample size is so small that a single event can have a significant impact on the year's result, yet with no change to the overall trend.

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide/weapon.html

Baker and mcphedran (link not available for the time being) have been able to demonstrate that the overall trend in firearm deaths has remained consistent for more than 30 years. The AIC data relating to homocide over many years is shown at the link.

To place this into context, here is the report of the audits of surgical mortality in Australian Hospitals.

http://www.surgeons.org/media/21156102/2014-11-25_rpt_anzasm_annual_report_2013.pdf

In short, there are 250-300 homicides per year in Australia, around 30-40 of which involve a firearm. The bureau, nor anybody else seems able to indicate how many of these murders involve a licenced firearm owner. Given the lack of reporting, the number is likely to be exceptionally low.

Put it another way, more cyclists were killed on Australian roads than may be expected to be murdered by firearm in Australia in recent times. The proportion killed by an appropriately licenced person is unknown. Anecdotally it can be expected to be massively more licenced drivers killed people than licenced firearm owners.

http://www.bitre.gov.au/statistics/safety/fatal_road_crash_database.aspx

What does all this mean? Kicking licenced gun owners isn't going to do a thing other than provide a convenient rallying cry for misinformation. So much for inclusion....
Posted by The Mild Colonial Boy, Friday, 16 January 2015 6:35:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The hound’s cultivation of his ignorance would ensure that he has never heard of the town which had a drop in crime rate after passing a law in 1982 which mandated gun ownership by its citizens
“The Kennesaw law has endured as the town's population has swelled to about 30,000 from 5,000 in 1982.
"When the law was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime ... and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then," said police Lt. Craig Graydon. "We are sure it is one of the lowest (crime) towns in the metro area.
Residents say they are comfortable with the image the gun law projects on the city as a bastion of gun freedom.
"There's been no move to get rid of the law. Why would you?" said Robert Jones, president of the Kennesaw Historical Society. "The law is a great tourist attraction. It's the town with the Gun Law.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/04/18/us-usa-crime-shooting-town-idUSN1719257620070418

Our gun laws ensure that guns are generally owned by criminals, and not by law abiding citizens.
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 17 January 2015 11:18:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are more deaths as domestics by Wiltshire stay sharp knives than firearms, yet none of the anti-gun brigade ever ask that the kitchen knife be banned.

They also adroitly avoid explaining how disarming law abiding gun owners, will lower the level of criminals holding unlicensed guns, and using them to commit armed crimes, or drive by shootings; perhaps with even more impunity?

Laws have to be enforceable to work.
And shutting the stable door after the horse is well and truly bolted, has little prospect of success either!

The real problem here is gun shy/or terrified politicians (vest anyone) unable or unwilling to admit they just got it wrong!

Given the death toll and permanent injury on our roads and genuine comparisons; you'd ban cars before you took the guns from legally licensed shooters.

Sometimes all that stands between us and being overrun with ferals, or something worse, like foot and mouth disease.

Good metal detectors will keep them out of our schools, places of worship and or, inappropriate buildings.

Politicians and the wealthy, surround themselves with guns.
Explain that difference in basic rights!
Perhaps the Magna Carta only applies to them, or the more sane Swiss?

Without that level of personal protection for that exclusive club, how long would it be before gun laws finally reflected sanity and the nature of life in our city streets?

I've read statistical evidence that gun crime among the legally licensed law abiding community is roughly equal that attributed to law enforcement agencies.

And it could also be argued that the anti-gun brigade are most vociferous when it comes to euthanasia, but even more vociferous when it comes to limiting the means to achieve it!

When seconds count, [and in every gun crime they do,] the police are invariably minutes away!
Rhrosty
Posted by Rhrosty, Saturday, 17 January 2015 11:38:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The article 'Mild Colonial Boy' refers to can be obtained through Google Scholar. Search using "Baker and McPhedran", click on the appropriate response, then follow the PDF from uni-muenchen.
Posted by Brian of Buderim, Saturday, 17 January 2015 12:07:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The gun man in the Martin Place siege was not licensed and was carrying an illegal weapon.

I ask the author one very simple question, How would tighter gun laws have prevented this terrorist from having that gun?

Of cause I don't expect an answer, simply because there isn't one. Guns don't kill people, people kill people and when a gun is involved it's mostly with illegal firearms.

Actions such as laws against clothing that can conceal such weapons, tighter restrictions on bail for suspected criminals, and of cause security guards who are not asleep at the wheel is what are required because tighter gun laws would not have made any difference to the outcome in Martin Place. Looser one maybe, but not tighter.

The other problem we have is political correctness interfering with police work, because had they (the police) not had to consider the ramification of shooting this terrorist at the first opportunity, chances are the two innocent victims would be alive today.

My view on terrorism is shoot first and ask questions latter as this would get the message across far better, that being, we don't negotiate with terrorists and once one claims to be committing an act of terrorism, their days are up. Zero tolerance.
Posted by rehctub, Saturday, 17 January 2015 1:17:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

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