No. How can everyone hsving guns make us safer?? What sort of society is it that makes this necessary?

Yeah right.
Hands up those who think America is a safer society than ours?
I think we don't need everyone playing Cowboys and Indians in the street, with idiots feeling superior because they have a steel implement in their hand.
Yee ha...!

The right to carry arms was the the heading and that means not just guns; as it is at the moment in Australia no one, that is you ordinary folk, is allowed to carry anything for self protection.

I continue to be amazed at the blindness of so many people. The fundamental cause of almost all problems, including violence, climate change, pollution, illegal immigration etc., is overpopulation, a subject that we are not permitted to discuss. Until we force the third world to reduce its birth rate all these problems are just going to get worse. In the meantime we are in the ludicrous situation that because of gun laws the only people with guns are the criminals, and ordinary law-abiding citizens are forbidden to carry devices for their protection.

The sad fact is that human morality has not improved at all since Auchwitz, and that we live in a brutal violent Hobbesian world. Anyone thinking that this is not the case will have to explain the random beheadings and other terrorist incidents that are becoming an increasing part of our lives in the West.

The solution is simple. The Chinese did it. If a one child policy were to be enforced around the world there may be some hope for the future. Otherwise it is downhill all the way.

Gun crime in the U.S is almost entirely a Black and Hispanic problem, we don't have many Black and Hispanic people in Australia so there can be no comparisons or assumptions made.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/crime_and_enforcement_activity_jan_to_jun_2012.pdf
NYC 2012, 96% of shooting victims and 97% of shooting suspects were Black or Hispanic.

What, as opposed to allowing crims and killers to effectively exercise that right?

One wonders what the outcome in that Sydney Cafe would have been, if both the dead men (officers of the court) had a concealed small weapon about their person; like say a .22 hidden in a fountain pen or some such, and only needing opportunity and resolve, to make the only victim, murderer Man Monis?

And who can say what the outcome in port Arthur would have been if some alert law abiding citizen had known what the appearance of a semiautomatic long arm meant, and acted before it could be used, because he and say half a dozen others actually could!

Or if the attendant hadn't been frozen with fear? And just slung a pot of boiling coffee in that face, the second the weapon was revealed!? And for only one possible purpose!

That said, I would limit that right to carry concealed weapons to people properly vetted and presenting as model citizens, already trained by the armed services and or the police!

The right to bear arms may well be in the Magna Carta and ratified by the later emancipation act; that conferred those same rights to all other citizens. But one suspects it was never ever meant to include criminals or the mentally unwell!

And the latter two examples who seem to be able to acquire their choice of weapons, with the only paperwork involved, the one that requires counting?

It's only crims that get involved in this activity; given law abiding citizens, by definition, can't!

An intelligently and deliberately engineered outcome to be sure? Wouldn't you say?
Rhrosty.

Jay wikipedia has a demographic breakdown for New York City covering the 2006-2008 American Community Survey for the U.S.Census which is interesting add in to the report you cited. Close enough to the same breakdown to be relevant.

White 44.6%
Hispanic or Latino 27.5%
Black or African American 25.1%
Asian 11.8%
American Indian 0.4%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0.1%
Other races 26%

R0bert

Widespread carrying of guns may not make a community safer, but the RIGHT to carry a gun will!

What's important and sufficient is that criminals will know that you and I MAY carry a gun - unfortunately some of us, hopefully just a few, will use this opportunity to actually take up guns, but that is a reasonable price to pay for our safety, at least in our own homes.

R0bert,
There's a possible explanation in this paper as to why European descended men are less violent than others.

Western Europe, State formation and genetic pacification.
Peter Frost, c/o Bernard Saladin d’Anglure, Department of Anthropology, Université Laval, Quebec City,
Canada
http://www.epjournal.net/articles/western-europe-state-formation-and-genetic-pacification/getpdf.php?file=EP1302300243.pdf
We've often been asked to ponder the reasons why countries like Switzerland, Canada and Norway which have widespread gun ownership record low rates of gun crime compared to the U.S.A and why between the 1960's an 1990's gun crime exploded in the U.S, the most plausible explanation is racial differences.

Suseonline, "Hands up those who think America is a safer society than ours?"

In many places it probably is safer.

The violence and crimes with weapons is almost invariably lower black on black and some Hispanic, involving drugs and the gangs that make money trafficking them.

Australia has had some indication of what it could be like through the takeover of some outlaw motorcycle clubs by middle eastern gangs.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/police-braced-for-bikie-crime-rise-following-mohammad-akbar-keshtiers-release-20150116-12rk53.html

Well I don't know about you lot, but it sure as hell would make me safer.

But then I always was a good shot, & had more than a little training. I must admit I was not too sure about fighting my way back from behind enemy lines with a Smith & Wesson 38, if I crashed, but I reckon I'd do better with even one of them, if attacked by a bunch of "Leb" thugs, as my son was in the streets of Allawah {Sydney] one afternoon.

If you want comparisons on safety, try Switzerland, where every house has a rifle.

Tommy Sotomayor describes what it's like to live in a majority White suburb in "open carry" Arizona and compares it to other places he's lived.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAPKqjFeXxA
I don't agree with everything Tommy says all of the time but if anyone's interested in the other side of the race debate in the U.S he's a good source of information, as are David Carroll, The Brother Of Logic And Commonsense and Reverend James David Manning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kit2Pl8fcfo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIQWCWSDcIA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPp5LrG1t5I

"White 44.6%
Hispanic or Latino 27.5%
Black or African American 25.1%
Asian 11.8%
American Indian 0.4%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0.1%
Other races 26%"

That's 135.5 percent.

Women particularly should have the right to some form of weaponry defence, even if it's just mace or pepper spray. As it stands, there are many places that women either can't go alone, or if they do, they leave themselves vulnerable to attack.

There is also another dimension to this issue - the combination of increasing militarisation of the police throughout the Western world and the escalation in legislation that robs us of our civil liberties (routinely sold to us as counter-terrorism).

Few people see the connection between these trends and the way that the issue of gun control is being pushed so hard in the Western media. Throughout history, an unarmed citizenry has been one of the key ingredients in the rise of fascist regimes. Ignore that at our peril.

Just to keep scaring us, the US is constantly cited as the benchmark society made violently dysfunctional by too many citizens carrying too many guns. However, the US is, and always has been, a dysfunctional society riddled with social injustice.

Other countries like Canada, with similar gun laws and with similar amounts of weapons in the community do not have the gun-crime rates of the US. Switzerland actually requires its citizens to own guns and to keep up regular training in their use. But even these countries are now coming under increased international pressure to disarm their citizenry. On has to wonder why.

Killarney,
The stories about gun control and Fascism are largely a myth, in Nazi Germany anyone who had a valid reason to own a firearm could get a licence and buy a gun, it was actually the Weimar Republic which outright banned firearm ownership.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/01/hitler-stalin-gun-control
Jews were not allowed to own guns after 1933 because they were considered alien enemies of the state and it's only subversive, pro Jewish commentators like Alex Jones and his cult following of fools and lunatics who equate gun control with Fascism.
I think we've adequately explained the problem with gun crime in the U.S and via the same logic expressed in the paper on genetic pacification we could have predicted the rise of violent gun crime from the 1960's and it's subsequent decline in the 1990's as more and more black and Mexican men with a pre-dispositon to violence were culled from the herd, so to speak.

Australia's crime rates and murder/violence issues are much less than many other countries.
Why on earth would we want to change our gun laws then?
We live in the best country in the world and don't need to change our ways now.

JOM, can you ever write anything on this forum at all without bringing up the colour of people's skin? You are paranoid about it!

LOL
Imagine road rage in Australia if everyone had a gun.
Does everyone carrying guns mean I can blow away bad guys with impunity? Look out the next idiot who deliberately passes too close to me while I'm riding my bike.

More guns = More dead people!

Jay you have no credibility here, you're a racist and a holocaust denier.

We have been over this many times, just search the internet for the number of accidental deaths and injuries to kids finding their parents guns. There even some videos of toddlers shooting their parents.

As with most crimes, shootings are generally between people who know each other. In Australia, it's often Men killing their partners, That what we should be talking about , not the merits of packing a firearm.

So if people had the right to bear concealed weapons, would criminals stop conducting criminal actions?

Or would they simply arm themselves better than the average citizen could do?

How do you square this

http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/agdbasev7wr/bocsar/documents/pdf/bb82v1pdf.pdf

With a need for concealed weapons?

Personally I'd not like to see the general adult population carry a weapon of any description, particularly not in a public street or place. There are enough drunks and other lunatics roaming around the streets as it is, imagine if many of them were armed ? Inebriated and carrying a gun, a perfect formula for serious injury or death ?

The coppers have more than enough to contend with without this ? There'd be more shootings then one could imagine. Give some people a firearm, and you create a pathological monster. Turn an ordinary mild man into a formidable fiend, who in his own limited thinking, had no equal, save another with a gun ! There'd be routine killings over minor issues; a parking space, road rage, or giving someone a malevolent look even ?

Citizens of Australia have a right to defend themselves against unlawful attack, be it from a human, a savage dog or other animals.

Who thinks that it should remain unlawful for a person to carry a stick to defend themselves against a dog, or for a person in pig infested country to carry a gun for defence against feral pigs?

'Who thinks that it should remain unlawful for a person to carry a stick to defend themselves against a dog, or for a person in pig infested country to carry a gun for defence against feral pigs?'

people who think animals are on the same level as humans. One Restuarant owner in Canberra (where else and most than likely a Greens voter) refused to kill cockraoches recently.

Gun-nuts invariably wail "look at Switzerland" when gun control is mentioned.

I wonder if they ever bother to find out what they are talking about:

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21379912

"All healthy Swiss men aged between 18 and 34 are obliged to do military service and all are issued with assault rifles or pistols which they are supposed to keep at home"

Ah. So they are issued by the military, for military purposes, and all owners are trained by the miltary.

Not sold in supermarkets or ordered online, then.

Also, they are all licensed, and the licensing is taken seriously, unlike the US, where...

"Individuals with misdemeanor convictions (including for violent offenses) can legally buy guns and obtain permits to carry concealed handguns.
Those obtaining concealed handgun permits are not required to demonstrate any specific need (or threat) to carry a weapon in public.
Law enforcement officials have no individual discretion in denying gun purchases or concealed handgun permits.
Private sales/transfers of firearms are completely unregulated, with no background checks or paperwork required.
Only a handful of states require licensing and registration, and typically just for handguns."

"It is no surprise that the United States has an astronomically higher gun death rate than any other industrialized democracy. The critical concept of civic duty—which is such a central element of Switzerland’s gun culture—has been eviscerated in the United States over time by the gun lobby."

http://csgv2.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/truth-about-guns-in-switzerland.html

Or as this blogger puts it:

"In reality, and perhaps ironically, and to the chagrin of the NRA, Switzerland is a fine model for the intent of the American Constitution's 2nd Amendment. They have a well-regulated militia instead of a standing army. They have universal background checks and universal licensing. They require firearm training before a gun can be owned. They have near total restrictions on the purchase and use of ammunition. In fact, they regulate and restrict much more than America does. Interesting."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/28/1190586/-Some-Truth-About-Switzerland-and-Guns

(There is also massive irony in the fact that the bankers of Switzerland wouldn't allow their country to fight anyway. It would be very bad for the historically incredibly lucrative business of "neutrality".)

G'day IS MISE...

I'm in total agreement with everything you've said herein. It is our right to defend ourselves against a violent attack, whether it's from an animal or human.

If it were you applying for a F/A licence for the purpose of reducing risk when on foot in feral pig country, and I was the licensing sergeant, you'd walk out with it in two minutes. Given your military background, advanced training, age and level of social maturity, you'd not represent any risk whatsoever to the public !

BUT, there are not as many IS MISES' (is the comma in the right place?) out there in the community as we'd like, and you know as well as I do, there are some you'd not trust with a water pistol lest it's filled with ammonia or some irritant concoction. Believe it or not, some years ago government were so concerned with the number of incidences of 'adults' with water pistols assaulting people with some nasty substances loaded therein ?

They were considering amending the F/A Regs (offensive weapons) to the extent, a person caught with such an item in their possession needed to prove; (i) they had the thing for a lawful purpose; and (ii) they intended to use it, in a lawful manner ? As an example, if a bloke were spoken to at 1.00am outside a popular night-spot, and he had a water pistol in his possession...well he needed to be 'pretty quick on his feet' to convince the coppers, the thing was being carried lawfully, and of course the average dope couldn't !

IS MISE, we've got some very, very, very, 'extraordinarily' stupid people out there, in this wonderful City of Sydney, you can believe me ! It's for this reason my good friend, the F/A laws MUST remain tight, for OUR protection !

Suse,
No, I see everything through the lens of race which has nothing to do with people's skin colour, there are American Negroes with pale skin and blue eyes, like Michael Jones one of the Oklahoma "teens" who murdered Australian man Chris Lane:
http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/600x4507.jpg

It's when you look past the aesthetic differences and asses the character of different demographic groups and the way individuals within those groups typically behave that racial differences become most apparent.

Cornonacob,
Credibility and acceptance are two different things, Holocaust affirmation is a form of social signalling to let other people know you're a good person and that you're not going to cause trouble or question anything you're told. I'm not interested in being accepted by narrow minded people or those who just swallow every line the media spin because I'm an atheist and I hold no beliefs at all. The war in Eastern Europe from 1941-45 is a fascinating topic and often the verifiable facts about the treatment of Jews and the reasons behind it are more shocking than the fiction written by Elie Wiesel or the Discovery Channel.
Racism I'll wear, I am a racist but racists don't compile crime statistics or conduct prison census', we don't produce any information of our own it all comes from anti-racist sources.
Gun crime in the U.S.A is a racial problem, over 90% of perpetrators and victims come from two minority groups, the areas where those groups live and congregate are the most prone to gun crime and other violence. Socio economic explanations also fall flat because the poorest counties in the U.S.A are in places like South Dakota, the Appalachian region and Alaska yet they record almost no violent crime because they are over 90% White and sparsely populated at that.
Blacks and Mexicans seek their own kind and tend to cluster in larger cities and rural centres, when they congregate they fight, it's a very simple issue to understand.

O sung wu having watched some of these real life cop shows, & seen the fear in which some US cops conduct a traffic stop, with guns drawn, I can understand your worry about concealable guns in the general public. This does appear to happen only in some known dangerous districts.

I doubt our cops dare to stop cars in some districts of Sydney, as their use of guns is not as accepted as it is in the US.

Unlike Pericles emotive claptrap, not all gun owners are "gun-nuts", but of course you can never expect any balance from a lefty-nut can you.

Since I have not bread a foal for a few years, my legal guns have not had to come out to protect my stock from wild dogs for some time, My ammunition is getting so old I'll have to dispose of it, & replace it with new.

What we should all have is the right to defend our homes from any type of trespass or invasion, with what ever force we deem necessary.

What I'd like to see is a well reasoned argument as to why it should remain illegal to carry a stick for self defence against savage dogs.

Was Australia over-run with wild walking stick wielding people to an extent that such a law needed to be passed?

Hasbeen, you've seen the show COPS right?
http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/cops-slammed-for-portraying-blacks-as-criminals/
John Langley thought he was doing liberals a favor. They were unhappy his long-running reality show, COPS, was showing too many black people getting arrested.

So he reversed it and showed white people getting arrested far out of proportion to the amount of crime they committed. On COPS, blacks are under-represented as the criminal offenders, compared to real numbers in society.

“What irritates me sometimes is critics still watch something and say ‘Oh look, they misrepresent people of color.’ That’s absolutely not true,” said Langley, the show’s producer, in 2009.

To the contrary, “I show more white people than statistically what the truth is in terms of street crime. If you look at the prisons it is 60-something percent people of color and 30 something percent white people. If you look at COPS is it 60 percent white and 40 percent other. It’s just the reverse. And I do that intentionally because I do not want to contribute to negative stereotypes.”

Personally as an ex-pat American I do not believe than more guns solves anything. I also think the statistics speak volumes if you compare per capita gun deaths between the USA and the rest of the world.

However like Is Mise I do feel people should have the right to self protection, at least in their own homes. The right to defend one's castle should be a basic freedom.

The problem in America is they don't seem to be able to distinguish the 'Right to Bare Arms' from the 'Right to carry a pistol, AK-47, bazooka or a rocket launcher'. Common sense has gone out the window and a mass hysteria has over loosing their Rights has taken over.

I find it sad that everyday on the news we see at least one or two murders have happened over night. Plus the glassings, the king hit one punches on un-expecting innocent people, the number of rapes and muggings that are going on daily is shocking. Australia has slipped far away from being a non-violent society.

ConservatveHippie,

"....I also think the statistics speak volumes if you compare per capita gun deaths between the USA and the rest of the world."

They do indeed, the USA is around fourteenth on a world scale and in many crime categories Australia is way up near the top.

G'day HASBEEN...

You fall into the same category as IS MISE, if either of you wanted a F/A's licence, and I was in licencing, you'd both have the thing in two minutes flat ! Regrettably there are many others out there in the big wide world, who don't share the same qualities as you and he does. You've both had extensive military training, very experienced in the safe handling of F/A's, possess good sound social maturity and judgement, etc !

But we both know there are many fundamental 'nut jobs' in our society, and I personally wouldn't want them anywhere near even a simple toy 'pop gun', let alone something equally innocuous, like a smooth bore 'Crack a Jack' .177 Air Rifle ? Something you and I and every other kid around, 10 or 12 years could've purchased new, for about 27/6 or even 30/- back in the early fifties.

Mate, I don't know what the answer is, many of our younger folk are becoming crazier as time goes by ? Just look what's happening to some of our young Muslim people ? Somehow, they're becoming radicalised, all rather conveniently in my view, then they're off to Syria or some other place nearby, to have their silly heads shot off, and the rest as they say is history.

Just enjoy practicing your 'turn in's' and 'apexing' as you dash through some of those tight mountain roads, with the top down in your 'super charged' V12 sports car ! Many of these people who are so ardently and vehemently against F/A's in the community, don't really understand the problem in my opinion ? When they're in the hands of criminals, that's the problem. Not the licit market, it's the illicit market, that's the predicament, always the criminal element ? So why punish the licenced shooter ? It makes no sense at all ?

Jay

Your argument about Nazi Germany disarming the Jews actually validates my argument about disarming the citizenry.

Parallel with the gun-control paradigm is the belief that ordinary citizens have no business thinking that they can control their own self-defence.

I remember when I took a women's self-defence course some years ago, I was astonished at the overwhelmingly negative responses I got from virtually everyone I spoke to about it. They seemed to think that I wanted to go out and beat up every man I encountered. The idea that I just wanted to be adequately prepared in the event of being attacked was unthinkable. That course taught me a great deal about simple techniques to get myself out of a dangerous situation, but to most people I was seen as being unduly 'aggressive', especially towards men.

We have become habituated as a society to believe that the responsibility for our self-defence lies solely with our willingness to rely on the police force and the military. Yet when we look at the types of personalities that are drawn to these professions - people who are mostly aggressive, macho and ultra-conservative - this does not inspire me with much confidence.

We are told that our best 'self-defence' lies in allowing these people to have exclusive access to all forms of weaponry and population control - guns, batons, tasers, water cannons, impunity against deaths in custody and increasing surveillance of our private lives.

Rightly or wrongly, I believe that people are lazily relinquishing their right to control their self-defence, and the escalation in the fight against gun ownership is a part of this process.

This is another anti gun article where the author mixes up fact and fiction to appeal to the prejudices of his intended audience.

The people of the USA have a Constitutional right to Bear Arms. Author Everett Themer may not like that, but it just happens to be a fact. Within that country, does the carrying of firearms by ordinary citizens reduce crime? Yes, it does. In gun free countries like Britain, home burglaries are right out of control. In gun loving states like Texas, it is very low. Every potential burglar in Texas knows that if they go into a house where the home owner is home, that homeowner has a legal right to shoot them dead.

Result? Little home burglary. Capital punishment works.

There are small towns in the USA where every citizen is armed which have practically no violent crime at all. The connection between an armed citizenry and low crime rates is so strong that three towns in the USA have passed a local ordinances requiring every household to own a gun.

The famous Lott Report conclusively proved that those states possessing "right to carry" laws reduced their crime rates. The validity of the Lott report was accepted to the extent hat every state in the USA has "right to carry" laws where citizens of good character can protect themselves from citizens of violent and predatory character.

Themer claims that new items make no mention of people deterring crime by carrying firearms. He got that right. What he failed to mention is that most violent gun crime is committed by blacks and Hispanics and that they seem to have declared war on the white race. News items will always feature articles where blacks are the victims of whites, but studiously ignore that fact that whites are fifty times more liable to be raped or shot by a black, than the other way around.

Well said LEGO, but it's a bit over the top: what works are not the guns, but the BELIEF that people are likely to have them at home.

I couldn't personally comply thus live in a town which made it compulsory to have a gun. Interference of government in our lives is evil, but it goes both ways - whether in forbidding guns or in requiring them.

As LEGO said "Themer claims that new items make no mention of people deterring crime by carrying firearms. He got that right."

There is also the fact that newspapers don't report successful applications of self defence; first it's not newsworthy and secondly the vast majority of cases are not reported.

This is particularly so in Australia as reporting the successful use of a weapon (of any sort) leaves the citizen open to charges of possession of a weapon.

The case in Sydney of the man who was attacked n his backyard by a known violent criminal and who, in defence, stabbed the crim (who later died as a result) is illustrative.
The defender was given a hell of a time by the Authorities as he apparently made the mistake of saying that he had the knife for self defence.

In Australia one defends one's self at peril, from the law and from the criminal.

I wonder why so many Americans hold their Constitution in contempt and are always trying to get around it?
I also wonder why so many Australians, including politicians, hold the natural right to defend one's self or family in contempt?

Is Mise, "In Australia one defends one's self at peril, from the law and from the criminal"

That brave old chap who defended himself and tried to rescue the offender was fortunate he was in NSW and not in another jurisdiction. Elsewhere in Australia a person who defends himself or anyone else is treated worse than a criminal, being hauled off for detention and interrogation then being forced to prove under a REVERSED standard of proof that his defence was warranted and exactly measured to avoid harm to the offender.

In blunt terms the presumption of innocence 'the gold thread that runs through the legal tradition' we inherited from the UK, is DENIED to the victim of crime who defends himself and might injure (take that broadly!) his attacker in the process. Similarly if your poodle might nip your attacker it is likely to be put down by police a s a 'dangerous' dog and it is YOU who could be up for another offence and compensation to the offender who got into your home.

I do know of a case on the Gold Coast where an old lady was cautioned by police after her otherwise very docile and equally old German Shepherd leaped up and pulled an offender from a high brick fence to the ground. It was early evening and the offender, with burglary in mind, had been enjoying a view through blinds of the granddaughter in the bathroom when the dog took action to defend her. After the usual expected delay in police response the suspected offender was taken into custody by police some distance away, limping but only bruised from his fall.

The sequel was that the police were unable to proceed through lack of evidence. However that didn't stop them from giving the victim, the owner of the dog, a dressing down for her old pooch, "If it wasn't for your neighbours defending your dog we would be taking it away right now".

In Australia, 'Progressive' governments and their leftist lobbyists hold the rights of criminals dear to their hearts.

Hi there IS MISE...

As always you argue a compelling case, and have so again on this occasion ?

I won't quote you, but the essence of what you say is perfectly true ? We all have the legal right to defend ourselves from a violent attack, that 'right' is enshrined in our common law ! But we must NOT possess or use 'ANYTHING' in which we may 'specifically' employ as a means of defending ourselves, from such attacks ?

An example, you could walk around all day with a house brick in your back pocket, and if attacked by a crook, and the coppers asked why you hit him with the brick, '...it was the only means I had in which to defend myself...' ? You'd be sweet with the coppers and the law. Conversely, if you'd said, '...I always carry a brick around in case I'm ever attacked...', well 'technically' you could be charged with possessing and using an offensive weapon ?

A most often cited quotation IS MISE '...the law is an ass...' ? Never a truer word spoken !

Even a diminutive female, if she is victim of a violent attack, and defends herself with a large hat pin, and she admits to police she carries the hat pin specifically for that purpose, self defence, technically she could be charged ? Though any copper's who were 'imbecilic enough' to mount such a prosecution.......well ?

Specific doubts or minor inconsistencies that may arise awkwardly, perpetrated by some of these overly pedantic Defence Counsels, and there's a real moral imperative existing in the matter, there's always the old standby legislation available to investigating police ?

The often used, and generally reliable, 'Tarpaulin Act, 1905', S.85a (covers everything), including any of these 'tricky' minor irregularities, that can and are generally accommodated quite well therein ? Even instances of some minor injudiciousness, that may've been exercised by said, diminutive female(s) ?

G'day there ONTHEBEACH...

As always, spot on ! Brilliant and very insightful of the Australian style of Jurisprudence ! The crook get's ALL the breaks, and bugger the victims.

I remember back in the late '70's K Mart sold guns, I used to carry mine over my shoulder on a motorbike, no worries. Now I would probably be labeled a terrorist for doing the same. Place doesn't seem "more safe" now.

People, mostly city folk seem afraid of firearms and seem to think we'll all devolve into raving nuts if we have them (I am currently licensed but don't own a firearm)

I supported the gun buy back but can see in retrospect it was nothing more than political frippery, using fear to curry votes and didn't address underlying issues of little support for mental health initiatives and I regret my support in hindsight and have apologised to many shooters many time for my political naivety.

I have never felt unsafe in my life and I lived in Cambodia for a year. I think feeling safe is relative, particularly in the western world. Far far far more chance of death by car than anything else and people are blasie about driving every day. They sit in their cars and worry about other people with guns, sugar, salt, watching TV (I see it's as bad for your health as smoking) etc.

With regards a response to the first post, firearms are like free speech and both should be protected. Americas prison population increase for example is directly proportional to the cut backs in funding to mental health

Why are you all so afraid ? WHy do you need to abdicate your bullying to others ie the Police ?

The only thing I "worry" about is stupidity and that seems more and more ubiquitous.

Yuyutsu,
Nobody is compelled to own a gun anywhere in the U.S and the more guns in a community doesn't make it more or less safe, it's wholly a matter of racial differences. Washington DC has strict gun laws and in recent times recorded some of the highest gun crimes rates in the U.S because of it's high Black population.
All the facts and all the statistics support the racial explanation of the U.S.A homicide rate, it's not a socio economic, constitutional or cultural problem, the problem is that guns are available to people who taken as a group are markedly less intelligent than the average and more aggressive by nature.
The crime rates in majority White areas of the U.S are the same as any other comparable community in Europe or Australia, it's just a fact of life, the "Anti Racist" activists who promote alternative explanations have no credibility, they are liars leading dreamers.
"Hands Up! Don't Shoot!" was based on lies, none of the credible witnesses, the forensic evidence or the three independant post mortems performed on Mike Brown supported the "Anti Racist" point of view but they totally confirmed officer Darren Wilson's version of events.
Racial profiling is a valid tool in crime fighting in the U.S, since Blacks also make up the vast majority of homicide victims in "troubled" communities this "Racism" serves the interests of decent black people most of all.

Hi there VALLEY GUY...

An interesting comment, thank you for that. Indeed K Mart sold F/A's usually the more budget models, in keeping with their consumer strategy I guess ? Nevertheless, the individual who attended to you at the K Mart counter, could be as young as 17 or 18 years, with absolutely no product knowledge of the F/A's whatsoever ? A colleague was conducting enquiries at one store apropos a F/A sale, the young sales person, needed to get a manager in order to assist the copper ? Apparently this youngster didn't know the actual difference between a Shotgun and a Rifle ? They sold the Boito brand, both in a repeater .22 Rifle, and a single barrel 12g Shotgun ?

The point being, there were no sieges, stand off's, or terrorists incidents - other than silly Wally MELLISH (small time crook) and his even more vacuous girlfriend, in a shack type arrangement 'farm house', the other side of Liverpool somewhere ? Even our august Police Commissioner, Norman T. W. ALLAN was in attendance, and gave-in to one of Wally's ludicrous demands; for another damn gun ? Which made the NSW Police, a laughing stock all around the world !

I was fairly new to the Police Force then, and believe me when I say, I seriously questioned my decision to join-up and make the Police a career ? Having observed our fearless leader in a moment of arrant psychosis, give this 'fruitcake' this unremarkable crook, Wally MELLISH another bloody gun !

That delightful little comedy, occurred in the 70's ! I've often reflected upon those times, was it some sort of omen or vocational prophesy for me ? Moreover, as a potentially keen aspirant, who's seeking a career in Australia's oldest and biggest force, the NSW Police ?

Now having retired, with over 32 years in the job, I've yet to arrive anywhere near a meaningful answer ? Other than having the unique privilege and opportunity of working with some of the shrewdest, bravest, and most percipient men and women, on the face of this planet !

o sung wu,

Your mention of Wally Mellish and his girlfriend and "The Siege of Glenfield" brings back memories.

There was even a song about it, I can only remember one verse at the moment.

Norman gave Wally a rifle,
An Armalite I hear,
The only thing Wally couldn't get
Was fresh supplies of beer.

Chorus:
He was there man,
an' he did do wrong!

The chorus refers to 'Norman the Foreman'.

Interestingly the day after (note: not straight after but the day after) two detectives from Ballistics (who shall remain nameless as they were good blokes doing what they were told) took some reporters still at the scene and gave them a demonstration of how the rifle had been tampered with and would only fire one shot and then jam.
The explanation was that one (1) pin in the rifle had been replaced with a piece of match stick, and this caused the rifle to jam.
A detective took out a pin, replaced it with a match stick, inserted a magazine, fired one shot and the rifle jammed.

The press were convinced (ha!)

[continues]

The next day I was present in the back of Smith's Sports Store when the manager, the late Les Crisp, replaced every pin in the mechanism of an Armalite rifle and proceeded to fire a full magazine to demonstrate that the demo of the previous day was a con job.
There were reporters from various newspapers there but not one word was ever written about this demo.

What the detectives had done was bend/severely dent the second round in the magazine and so the rifle jammed; simple, but it fooled the press. This took a lot of pressure off Norman Allan.

A few days later I was in the Sergeant's Mess, at Moorebank, when some of the police who had been at the Siege dropped in for a drink (the Mess was a regular watering hole for the local police) a couple of them said that after Norman had left, they were subjected to some heavy fire from the house and that as WW II vets they had a fair idea of what was being fired at them.

Good afternoon to you IS MISE...

Of course I wasn't there, but you can imagine the gossip, it went through every jolly Station in NSW I reckon ! We'd all speculated that the offending 'gun' had been 'doctored' in some way, nevertheless such an action from a serving police commissioner, well it really raised some eyebrows, throughout the Western World I would've thought ?

Personally I didn't have a great deal of time for him, not that I ever met him, at our graduation from Redfern Barracks we had the OIC at the Pass-Out, the inimitable Supt. John (Jack) SLIGAR, a taciturn but a really great bloke, according to those who knew him well.

In my memory, I don't think I can recall a more embarrassing event ever to happen, while I was in the job. Imagine if someone was hurt ?
You're right you know IS MISE, most of the detectives called into the local Sgt's Mess at any base for a cold one, if the 'radio' was quite. The thing is, whenever you're on a military establishment, you're not going to meet up with some boof-headed 'cockroach' who wants to prove himself, when they're full of 'piss and bad manners' ?

You reflect back on some great times there IS MISE. We often called into the Mess at the RAAF section of Bankstown Airport, and by gee they'd look after us too !

One wonders if the young mother recently violently murdered in Parramatta would have benefited from being allowed some form of self defence?

She had her phone and could hav called 000, I wonder if that would have helped?

Do you have any ideas, Suse?