This what disrupts police action against the organised criminal gangs that make millions from trafficking drugs and are responsible for almost all gun crime in Australia: an incoming Labor government that vows to wipe out the highly successful anti-bikie and anti-gang arrangements that were already in place and seen to be working.

-Working so well in fact that other States were moving to implement similar regulations - because criminal figures were moving interstate after finding Queensland much too hot for them.

<Palaszczuk says Labor to repeal bikie laws

Queensland's controversial bikie laws would be repealed and replaced under a Labor government, though the opposition leader won't reveal what with.>
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/01/25/palaszczuk-says-labor-repeal-bikie-laws

Simply amazing how there is always sympathy for the alleged 'rights' of known criminals, but there is no concern whatsoever about random police inspections and interviews in the home of the duly licensed, police-certified crime free citizens who are known and proved NOT to have anything to do with gun crimes, who utterly oppose such crime and are among the most trusted, upright members of society.

Go for a boat trip with reputable Gold Coast businessmen and they can point out the multi-million dollar waterfront mansions built with drug money.

Taking cocaine alone, if there were random 'Drugwipe' checks of the legal elite as they straggle out of their office buildings and expensive venues in the city centres on Friday nights, it is possible that the courts couldn't operate the following Monday.

What about regular, random 'Drugwipe' checks of all politicians and public servants? They would be furious at the mere suggestion, scandalized and outraged, adamant that it would would abuse THEIR rights.

However it is OK, necessary, to direct police to conduct regular, random, flying inspections and interrogations in the home of ordinary law-abiding, character-checked, licensed citizens have done nothing wrong - quite the opposite in fact, they are known and certified to be law-abiding.

That is the Catch 22 lunacy of 'gun control' for you.

Hi Mr O Sung Wu. I have not responded to your posts aimed directly at me because I needed to conserve my replies to Steelie and AJ.

AJ claims that he is a criminologist, and if he is, it certainly raises doubts about the quality of education in Australian universities, if today's "criminologists" can't figure out what causes crime. My premise is, that crime is rising for three primary reasons, two of which are related. The first is, that people are being imported into western societies from very violent cultures who's concept of right and wrong can be diametrically opposed to our own. I would submit as evidence the fact that in 2000, the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics published a news release saying that 55% of the handgun shootings in the entire state of NSW occurred within the boundaries of two notoriously crime prone ethnic ghettoes in Sydney.

As to the glamourisation of criminal behaviour, graffiti is a good example. In the past, graffiti was almost always political and no where near as prevalent as it is today. My favourite examples were on railway cuttings near Strathfield where long ago, somebody has painted PIG IRON BOB which some wit had changed to BIG STRONG BOB. Then there was DONT GET YANKED INTO WAR which some other wit had changed to DONT GET YANKED INTO WARSAW.

Today's graffiti which now defaces every fence, wall and structure in Australia (and everywhere else) was not the product of original thinking by young Australians which erupted spontaneously. It was created in US ghettoes and it spread by the media as a fashion statement for young people. It has gone far beyond being a minor problem, the NSW State Rail now spends $60 million a year repairing damage to public property, which includes replacing nearly every window in suburban trains that are regularly scratched with glass.

The media is routinely glamourising criminal behaviour to our youth and then pretending that it can not influence people's behaviour. Which is obviously malarky when it is largely sponsored by the advertising industry which claims the exact opposite.

LEGO,

It’s not that you’re dishonest because you don’t quote others.

<<…if I do not include the previous or following sentences, I get accused by dishonest debaters like yourself, of taking quotes out of context.>>

It’s that you wouldn’t quote others because you are dishonest.

Your continual misrepresentation of what others say relies on the hope that your “audience”, or “the impartial observer” (that you are so focused on), has forgotten what exactly was said and just assumes that you’re addressing the claims of others accurately. Or perhaps I’m giving you too much credit and the only person you’re deluding is yourself?

Ironically, the quote above, that I’m responding to, is an example of this type of dishonesty.

<<You said that the quote from me, that Flannery had said that "the dams would never fill again", was wrong, even though you knew it was right.>>

I already addressed this here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17494#309589. Repeating a lie doesn’t make it come true.

<<The object was, to run me around on a wild goose chase researching the exact quote, to derail my line of reasoning. >>

No, I clearly stated the object here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17494#309484.

<<Your tactic there, was to oppose the concept that races were unequal, while simultaneously refusing to defend the concept that they were equal.>>

Wrong again. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275806, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275877)

I even tried to get you to clarify what you meant by “equal” to give you a more definitive answer and you repetitively refused because it wouldn’t allow you to obfuscate (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275877).

<<This puts you in the position of always demanding that your opponent provide proof and come up with reasoned arguments, while you just sit back and heckle.>>

I’ve already addressed this here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17534#310291, and here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17534#310327.

<<…this indicated that I was dealing with people who knew that they were wrong, but who were desperate to hide the truth.>>

When only one of us can respond to direct quotes and link back to previous arguments to reveal the lies in the other’s claims, it’s pretty obvious who’s “desperate to hide the truth”.

Continued…

…Continued

<< I think that this is why you are so determined to get at me, and no blow is too low to do it.>>

Actually, it’s more to do with my fascination with the extent to which you will duck and weave. Exposing it is a bonus too. Oh, and try giving just one example of a low blow from me. Another claim you can’t substantiate and will, therefore, simply press on as if nothing was said.

<<You have claimed that crime is not rising…>>

Overall, yes.

<<…and then implied that the public only thinks it is rising because of increased media coverage of crime…>>

Yes.

<<…and now you are even denying that you said that.>>

Erm, no. I happily acknowledged that. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17534#310327)

<<If you wish to submit a reasoned argument that crime is not rising, then go right ahead.>>

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17534#310115,
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17534#310193, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17534#310194,
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17534#310247, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17534#310291.

<<I will very happily examine what you written, and subject it to fair examination.>>

Well get cracking then.

<<In addition to the facts I have already written in previous posts about rising crime…>>

Hang on. You still haven’t justified the first “facts”. You merely asserted them.

<<…I would add that the clearest picture of our changing society comes with any train ride from Sydney's Central Station into the South Western suburbs.>>

When someone pits anecdotal evidence against decades of research, you know they haven’t got a case. The same can be seen in the GMO and aspartame scares.

I don’t know what your last paragraph is supposed to prove.

<<… if today's "criminologists" can't figure out what causes crime.>>

All crime?

Where do you get this idea from anyway? Do you think criminologists are clueless just because they don’t always agree with your amateur, cherry-picked assertions?

Good afternoon to you LEGO...

Thanks for replying to my recent thread, I understand you've been busy presenting your opinions to Messrs STEELEREDUX and our little treasure, A J PHILLIPS.

I've read your responses carefully, particularly your claim that 55% of all handgun shootings in NSW have occurred in those; '...notoriously crime prone ethnic ghettos, in Sydney...'. Actually, I took part in several TF's (Task Force) established in that area, though our brief was not specifically assigned with interdicting illicit weaponry, therefore for that reason I'm quite surprised the percentages you've quoted herein are so low ?

It seemed every premises that we raided, illegal and modified long-arms were subsequently seized, though I note you refer specifically to 'handguns'. Nevertheless, the figures are truly worrying, and I'm speaking of my contribution, which was some years back. Therefore one can only imagine what the area is like now, apropos illegal F/A's. As well as what the precise rate of possession is, amongst that unique demographic ?

To be honest with you LEGO, I could find absolutely no fault in anything you've asserted or raised, which is worrying in itself ? The longer governments allow these social sores to fester and indisputably deteriorate, the harder it'll be for them to correct it .

Hi AJ.

I am sorry, I don't debate against links. That puts the onus upon me to do all the work, re-reading everything you have written, only to make the same conclusions that I have previously. Then you will say that I am misinterpreting and misquoting you again. If you have anything to say, just write it out plainly and clearly instead of implying everything, and then claiming that my understanding of your implications is deliberately wrong.

I submitted that one aspect of rising crime was the importation of people from very violent cultures, something that I think you oppose. One fact which confirms my premise, is the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research who's press release "Firearms and Violent Crime in NSW (issue number 57, May 2001). On page 4. it said this.

"It is evident from figure 4 that Shootings in the Canturbury-Bankstown and Liverpool-Fairfield subdivisions have been more pronounced than the increase in the rest of the state between 1995 and 2000. In fact shootings in these areas account for more than half (55%) of all handgun shootings which occurred across NSW in the year 2000.

From this press release I conclude that handgun crime rose after the gun buyback, and that most of this rise was caused by recently imported immigrants from violent cultures who made these areas into crime prone ethnic ghettoes. Now, if you oppose my premise, what evidence do you submit that handgun crime did not rise after the gun buyback? And the onus is upon you to prove that this behaviour was commonplace, even when these suburbs were populated entirely by working class white Europeans.

I also maintain that graffiti in NSW was only a fraction of the problem it is today. I can see that with my own eyes, and any person who is may age would agree with me. Now, you call the evidence of my own eyes "anecdotal", implying that it is untrue. What hard statistical scientific evidence do you have that graffiti is no better or worse today than say, 50 years ago?