I am prepared to concede that the gun buyback may have had a less than ideal outcome. But that does not mean it should never have been attempted. The execution and terms of the scheme could have been improved, with hindsight. But it did not result in higher crime. And it certainly not an argument in favour of higher private gun ownership.

Is Mise said>

Your comments regarding people being able to defend themselves are spot on.

We worked on a case years ago where the guy tied up the husband a raped his pregnant wife in front of him and their two year old daughter and six year old son.

Also I think self defence should be taught in all schools along with some fire arm lessons.

Far more strict guideless to owning a firer arm.


I think a lot of people that argue guns should not be allowed are basically scared of guns.
There are lots of men who will say they dont believe in guns because normally its a mans thing and they have no idea how to handle one.

Instead of saying Gee I dont know much about guns and I would be scared to handle one they pretend they are on a higher moral ground.
Its sort of a male muncho thing.

I stress - not All but we found heaps like that at the pistol club who would come in with the groups as guides.

Nearly all the ones that were honest enough to say that who we talked into doing target shots on the rage learned far more than how to handle a fire arm

There confidence grew and you could see they enjoyed the other blokes company. They formed good friendships and enjoyed BBQs with their kids friends parents making new friends.
There were lots of ladies that were terrified at first of even touching a gun.
The one thing everybody had in common however after six months was you could tell they were real proud that if it came ever to a point they had to they could protect their kids and family.
They grew in condidence and we need all to know how to protect ourselfs instead of that poor family who were bashed and rapped in front of their own kids.
Just imagine how that Dad copes with the fact he could not protect his family.
'

Just found this pertinent observation over on The Primer Pocket site.

Quote:
The Telegraph has a story on VP Cheney’s bodyguards being armed. Seems a special addition to NSW gun laws was gazetted in a hurry.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21263379-5001021,00.html

“I don’t have any problem at all with US VP Dick Cheney’s Secret Service
bodyguards being armed. Or John Howard’s, or Morris Iemma’s, or anyone else
who needs protection.

But the law should apply to all. Is that not one of the primary foundations
of the Westminster system?
If Dick’s, John’s, Morris’ and any visiting celebrity’s life is worth
protecting, what about a woman who is being stalked, a business owner whose
shop has been repeatedly held up, someone subjected to death threats? Are
their lives not entitled to protection also?

There are situations when it is entirely valid for a person (with training
in the use of a firearm, and familiar with the legal ramifications of their
use), to have the means to protect their own lives, those of others, or
property from criminal (or terrorist) elements.

That principle has just been acknowledged by 2 tiers of government. However,
if we are all equal before the law, if the life and safety of each of us
matters equally, then the right and the means should be available not only
to Dick, John, and Morris, but in case of genuine reason, to Joe
Businessman, and to Joe and Jane Citizen as well, if they demonstrate that need.” Unquote

Is Mise: "We don't need statistics to build a case for allowing firearms for self defence.
There exists a natural right to protect our lives and the lives of our families and others."

No offence, but that is among the most ludicrous things I've ever heard.

So you're saying, it doesn't matter if relaxing gun laws leads to more murders in Australia, just as long as you can have a gun to protect yourself?

What are you so paranoid about protecting yourself from?

Yes, crime happens, but the rates of crime here are far lower than the places where gun restrictions are lax.

You keep hammering the issue of 'rights.' And the right to defend yourself. Of course you have the right to defend yourself. That doesn't mean you have the right to a gun. Those are separate issues. You don't have the right to purchase all manner of illegal materials, be they guns, explosives, poisons or child porn.

I am a vocal defender of civil rights, though I recognise that essentially, rights are a set of rules enacted by man to preserve freedoms while maintaining a functioning, happy society.

I dunno about you, but I feel free to express myself how I want, and live a pretty damn free life. Restrictions on guns doesn't ultimately alter my quality of life - if anything it enhances it by knowing there are less guns out there.

Simple fact: the more guns, the more likely someone is to abuse their guns. The more likely people are to get shot.

So the proposition that there exists a natural right to self protection is ludicrous.
OK, I take your point but the Law in Australia agrees with the proposition, so does the Catholic Church and hence the majority of Christians and so have many philosophers. Even that great champion of peaceful protest Mahatma Gandhi agreed with the proposition, he went so far as to say that unless one possessed the power to strike back then passive resistance was meaningless.

I just believe that law abiding citizens have the right to be able to protect themselves.

Personally having a gun or not doesn't worry me. Naturally if I have to protect myself, or mine, from a violent attack I'd prefer to have a gun; often it's presence is enough to diffuse a situation.
But there are other means of defence and I shall always be grateful to the Commonwealth Government for having spent the money to train me to be skilled in many ways of killing if necessary. I am proficient in unarmed combat and with machine guns, rifles, shotguns, sub-machine guns,pistols, grenades and the bayonet
They even trained me to use the bow, the knife and the garrotte for silently getting rid of sentries.
Swordsmanship I paid for myself as I thought that it might be a handy skill, and there were some lovely girls who learned fencing.

OF course the above skills were not imparted to enable the efficient killing of criminals but rather, law abiding fathers and sons who had probably never even thought of doing a criminal act, they just happened to be on the wrong side.

Anyway the Commonwealth and the NSW Governments have just given their imprimatur to the proposition; they gave licence to Dick Cheney's bodyguards. So having firearms for protection must be acceptable, particularly if there is a little political expediency thrown in.

The ludicrous bit was the "statistics don't matter" element of the argument, where it was okay for there to be a higher rate of murder, just so long as we can get the guns to protect ourselves.

From what exactly, I'm still not sure. I can only assume it is the crime rate... which is lower where there are fewer guns.

Hence the argument seeming ludicrous. Not the mantra "I have the right to protect myself." Of course you do. That doesn't necessarily equate to guns.

No doubt you feel safer clutching a gun in battle; perhaps it is justified in a war zone... well, until I'm living in a war zone, I think we're better off without the guns.