The Australian Party was launched by Bob Katter on the 5th of June 2011 (http://www.ausparty.org.au/news/latest-updates/view/21/bob-katter-launches-the-australian-party-to-take-on-the-big-boys). He has won support for the action from Pauline Hanson (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/pauline-hanson-votes-for-bob-katters-new-party/story-fn59niix-1226069746463#) and has also been described by Noel Pearson as being the best Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs we "never had" (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/hats-off-to-katters-grand-plan/story-e6frgd0x-1226051430675}.

The Major Parties are trying their very best to ignore it (hoping it'll go away - yeah, that approach worked with "One Nation" didn't it?), however, Bob Katter Jr is a man to be reckoned with - ESPECIALLY in Queensland. From what I've heard already, the list of possible candidates contains people who have been busy with helping Indigenous Communities & People to help themselves as well as people who are well-known for their support for local jobs, agriculture and the rest. If "One Natoin" appealed to those disaffected with both the Labor and National Parties, how much more so would Mr Katter? He has been absolutely solid in his support for people from both ends of the spectrum and also from the so-called "battlers" from the dead-center.

Beneath that hat there is an exceptional Politician, one of very, very few. The QLD National Party has essentially given its self up to the Liberals (so there are a LOT of disaffected National Supporters), while conditions on Aboriginal Communities (and relations with Police) under the QLD ALP is rapidly outstripping that from the dark days of Sir Johannes Bjelke-Peterson KCMG. So the number of disaffected voters would have to be at an all time high.

We can either assist the major parties to stifle this debate, or we can debate it ourselves. Personally I hope Mr Bob Katter Jr (MP) is successful, at least he can say something other than "NO" which makes him a better choice than Bob Brown.

It is full of nothing.
No promise no hope no future

Bob Katter has a Lee-Enfield Service Rifle on the wall of his office.
There's a hell of a lot of gun owners' votes out there as well.

It will all depend on final policies. So far all that has been reported about the Australian Party are five very general and vague policy ideas - a couple which sound good in principle but no detail to make informed decisions. Policies are also about the HOW not only the WHAT.

Katter's biggest mistake is branding the new party with his name - Katter's Australian Party seems a bit conceited and his personality will not win him (his party) too many votes outside of QLD.

I wonder if the Shooters/Fishers party will amalgamate with the Australian Party. It would seem logical rather than spreading the potential voter base a bit thin. Is Mise having a gun on the office wall will be as much a deterrent given Australia is not like the US on gun ownership and we have a much lower crime rate, certainly in relation to gun crime.

Much will also depend on the quality of the candidates. I suspect Katter's support in QLD will win a few disaffected voters in other rural QLD electorates particularly in the North.

The Coalition would be silly to ignore the effect of tensions between the Nationals and Liberals particularly in QLD. From memory, I think there are also two independent National members in WA.

I have always liked Katter, he always calls a spade a spade, & often talks sense.

However one of the first things he started pushing was ethanol for transport fuel.

All the research I have done is showing it takes more fossil energy to produce a liter of ethanol than the energy available from that ethanol. When you add the fact that it takes a large tax payer subsidy to make the production viable, there's not much left to recommend ethanol.

He will have to explain his reasons much better, or just look like another smarty.

It would appear the only thing you can get from ethanol is the cane farmers vote.

This leaves me wondering. Is Katter lazy, & has not kept abreast with the facts? Is he dumb, & doesn't understand, or is he just another politician, prepared to use the global warming con, to try to buy votes? None of the above possibilities make him too attractive to me these days.

He will have to explain his reasoning much better, or look like just another smarty.

'Shoot-em-up' Katter will only ever secure the votes from a few gun-happy rednecks in some rural areas of Australia,
and certainly never enough support from the bulk of intelligent Australians.

Dear Is Mise,

Damn fine rifle that. I had the 'Smelly' version when I was 14 or there abouts. Not an ounce of plastic, really friendly with a fair kick for a teenager but comfortable on the shoulder and smooth to sight. The horizontal windage knob was hardly used but nice to have anyway.

One little trick to play on those who thought they knew a bit about the 303 was to pull the bolt out one notch which effectively locked the whole rifle. Couldn't move the bolt action nor pull the trigger. Use to shut a few of the blowhards up. I wonder which version Bob has?

Bob Katter is 70% all right, 20% blowhard and 10% bully. Now I don't mind when he bullies those in power and for that I wish him and his party well, but I have seen him turn on those who certainly didn't deserve that kind of treatment.

Still he adds colour to a pretty drab lot and I think the political landscape  would be poorer without him.

Well, it only has about 5 major policy areas, and opposing privatization, the nanny state and carbon taxes are pretty damned good starts (free fishing and anti-free trade I'm rather less enthusiastic about).

All in all, having enough of these members in parliament to hold the balance would get rid of a LOT of rot.

I have always liked Katter.
But he as mad as that Hatter.
Stands by those who vote for him and has highlighted often his old party never will.
He has something in common with Hanson,the high strident voice near breaking in to tears.
He can not do much with this party, it is a very old donkey running against a fine race horse named self interest.

I went to school with Bob Katter , though I have not seen him for many years . He is a decent , but misguided man . Like many people from rural areas , he believes that all merit resides north of Capricorn and that the bushies in their 4 WD s , with their firearms and bull terriers , are the real Australians . Everybody else does not matter , except to pay taxes to support the bushies. I have heard that , as Queensland Minister for Aboriginal Affairs , he did a reasonable job , despite being a member of the ultimate redneck Bjelke Petersen government . However , his proposed party will attract support only from those who think that Australia owes them a living , just for being what they are . It is One Nation reincarnated , with a bit of inspiration from the US Tea Party . It will gain a few votes , maybe even a few seats , make a lot of noise and then disappear after a few years .

As a pious inner city intellectual from the southern states, I would just like this opportunity to mock and stereotype Queenslanders and gun owners as red necks of low intelligence.

He does wear a hat after all. Now if he were wearing Muslim head dress, I would think criticism beyond the pale, and any stereotyping would be an unfair social exclusion, and I would be all for diversity and difference, and would show great respect. But there is no kudos to be gained by being consistent in this area, and lets face it, he's not one of us.

Houellebecq,
Haven't you detected that many more than the bushies are
fed up with the "inner city intellectuals from the southern states" ?

Bazz he is pulling your leg,may have hit wrong key but I said as much in a harmless post that is not there now.
I did welcome Jaylex.

What Jaylex said. Katter's a decent bloke and well-supported by his constituents, but ultimately performs the function of sideshow clown in Parliament. They'll provide a distraction for a couple of years at most, then follow One Nation down the gurgler.

They should call it the Mad Katter's Tea Party.

I suspect that their short term success or otherwise will depend on how the others react.

An overreaction and all stop's attempts to silence them will buy them a lot of votes (as it did for One Nation) but if left to stand or die on their own merit's they will be in for a hard slog. They may like the Greens have been become the recipients of protest votes. Maybe Abbott can set up a secret fund to try and bring them down.

R0bert

"'Shoot-em-up' Katter will only ever secure the votes from a few gun-happy rednecks in some rural areas of Australia,
and certainly never enough support from the bulk of intelligent Australians.Posted by suzeonline, Wednesday, 8 June 2011 8:19:55 PM"

Didn't take long for the frst name-calling anti-gun post.

Suppose I ought to reply in standard fashion,
Suze, you wouldn't be able to respond like that if it were not for men with guns and guns predominetly of the type that Bob has on his wall.
You would not be using a 'qwerty' board (let alone a Dvorak, such as I use), but being in one of the more backward parts of the Imperial Empire you'd probably be using a Japanese typewriter (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_typewriter ), if you were fortunate enough to have gotten an education.
You most certainly would not be arguing about a politician.
You might be allowed a polite grumble, with acceptable bowing, about your local administrator but that's about all.

Bob Katter is also in favour of Australians being not only legally allowed to defend themselves against unlawful attack but also being allowed the means to do so.

Is Mise
I don't think Suze was arguing that guns should not be used in war. Most of us can work that one out - but wartime is nothing to do with domestic use.

Australia's gun laws are more than adequate and still allow for hunting and other on-farm use.

What on earth would we gain from legalising gun ownership for homeowners in the form of hand guns in every home etc.

We would face the same problems as the US and crime rates in countries without widespread gun ownership are much lower. I reckon we should be thankful that we don't have the same problems instead of trying to adopt that flawed mindset.

Dear Is Mise,

Fair cop mate, you invited the talk on guns.

As a person who had a gun rack in his room as youngster I have had to face facts, personal weapons have been used far more often to put self-inflicted bullets into the heads of young country males than to defend anyone from attack or violent crime.

The thought of free access, particularly for our  urban youth who have been subjected to the type of ultra- violent movies and video games that we were probably far better off without, is just plain scary.

You give me a generation who has been free from those influences then come and talk to me about relaxing gun laws, until then no way.

Even in my day things were not all that rosy, I remember tripping on a hunting trip with my father when in my early teens and sending a round within six inches of his left ear. Not a word was spoken. He took my rifle off me, unloaded his, shouldered both weapons turned around and headed straight back to the car. It was never discussed. I still shudder thinking about the what-ifs.

Part of the appeal of Bob is the nostalgia he evokes in a number of Australians including me for those supposedly more innocent times, but when we seriously ponder them they weren't as flash as we think. 

Bazz,
As the saying goes, intellectuals are largely ineffectuals. The bushies are well aware of that.

Who's talking about free access?
It'd just be rather nice for the next victims of a home invasion to be able to keep something, legally, with which to defend themselves.
In this coutry it is a criminal offence to keep a cricket bat for the purpose of defence, but it's OK to keep your favorite bat (cricket) in the bedroom, and it's OK to use it for self defense as long as you didn't have the intention of doing so.

It is even a crime, when out hunting rabbits, to have in one's possession cartridges loaded with heavy shot intended for defence against pigs; on the other hand it is perfectly legal to have such cartridges on the off chance that one might see a feral pig and get the opportunity of killing it.

However to intend to defend yourself is illegal.

Australia, the smart country.

Pelican "We would face the same problems as the US"....

if 13% of our population were Negroid.

Take a look at the prison statistics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States#Minorities

39% Black prisoners, in a country that's only 13% Black.

34% White prisoners, in a country that's 72% White.

"As the saying goes, intellectuals are largely ineffectuals. The bushies are well aware of that."

They sure are, at least until they are sitting on the dunny one day and they look down to see the bowl is full of blood or they are rushed in for a triple bypass. Then the "young doc with the slanty eyes" is the best bloke in the world.

Happened to two older cockies I know in the last few months.

It is the psyche that is built up around guns and the culture it instils. Guns that can not only be used in defense but in attack and after a few drinks having a gun around the home is more dangerous than not especially in relaton to heat of the moment situations. More deaths will come from having guns so freely available than if there is some gun control.

The statistics don't lie when they are so overwhelming.

It is the psyche that is built up around guns and the culture it instils. Guns that can not only be used in defense but in attack.
Pelican,
The same goes for just about everything that the phenomenon of human life can throw at you. People wrongly always argue against the use of utensils instead of the use of their intelligence. It's not what you use to do wrong, it's how you think about doing wrong that is the real problem. I have stated countless times on OLO that we need a change in mentality not more rules & regulations. How did this runaway stupidity in Australia multiply so quickly is what we have to address not the caliber of a rifle. What about the mentality of a magistrate who doesn't dish out penalty to a youth who bashed an old citizen ? Where is the outcry for the crime committed by the member of the Law Society ?
Personally, I can not see any way of improving the present gutter mentality other than by introducing non-military National Service. Now, before anyone hits back with this is no good, come back with an idea how to combat this extremely serious situation.

When I see the reports of the activities of the ferrals around the
place, I shudder to think what it would be like if guns were easily
available. At present to get an illegal gun they really have to be
known to "heavy" criminals. The crims are reluctant to expose
themselves by selling to unknown "kids".

Bazz,
Agree but, what do we do about the ferals in Bureaucracy ? Or the feral system we appear to have when it comes to compensation for victims of ferals' activities ?
Look a little deeper into this & you'll find guns a minor issue in comparison.

individual,

Guns are a "minor issue" because at present we have relatively effective controls in place to restrict their ownership.

Poirot,
Again, why the twisting of a quote ? I didn't say guns a minor issue, I said in comparison to the bureaucratic ferals' doings guns are a minor issue,

"When I see the reports of the activities of the ferrals around the
place, I shudder to think what it would be like if guns were easily
available. At present to get an illegal gun they really have to be
known to "heavy" criminals. The crims are reluctant to expose
themselves by selling to unknown "kids".Posted by Bazz, Saturday, 11 June 2011 10:14:16 AM"
Guns are easily available, join a gun club.
But apart from that where are the majority of the semi-automatic military rifles that were imported from China?

They weren't handed in during the 'Buyback'.

Anyway what's to stop someone making their own guns?
They are a simple mechanical device that is nowhere as complex as a motor car, any handyman could make one.

Which is beside the point, up in Queensland there are many thousands of gun owners who will look favourably on Bob Katter.

How many fewrrels would have access to the machine tools necessary
to make a gun ?
If they did put something together they would probably kill themselves
with it the first time it was fired.

the first time it was fired.
Bazz,
You're confusing practical people with those highly educated two-left hands ones.

The Mau-mau used to make highly effective guns in what was then Rhodesia.
The Karen in Burma fought the Japanese initially with homemade guns.
In Afghanistan during the First Afghan War the tribesmen with homemade guns out-fought the British and inflicted on them a humilliating defeat.
In India today 'country guns' find a ready market in the cities.

What do these all have in common?

Lack of machine tools and any sophisticated machinery.

Pity this site doesn't allow pictures as I have a Mau-mau gun, made from the steering column of a vintage car, that is quite accurate out to 70 yards and a single shot shotgun that was made in the workshop of a prominent Sydney City building; only hand tools and an electric welder were used.

What about all those unaccounted for semi-auto military rifles out there?

is Mise,
It goes to show that with just an ounce of pragmatism & another ounce of ingenuity you can achieve as much if not more than with a BA.

Do you guys really think our society would be better off with greater gun ownership? Is the lack of guns to blame for increasing violence? I can't see how allowing more guns into the mix will reduce the escalting problems with violence, particularly gangs and street violence.

I reckon the best defence against violence is better economic policy focussed on reducing disparity, better support for disenfranchised groups using self-help and self-sufficiency philosophies and access to opportunities in education and work.

Even with the best societies you are going to get some violence and some people who are just plainly evil with no respect for other individuals. However increasing gun ownership is not the way to build safer communities and I guess on that point we disagree.

I should not be saying this
Katter is a good bloke lovable but unsuited to run a party.
He will be a huge pain.
For his side of politics, so go for it bloke watch the gravel rash as you come a gutsa.

Pelican, the normal overblown rhetoric about gun ownership put out by people such as above is just WRONG. It is loaded with assumptions about what 'others' want, 'their' moral inferiority, and about the effects of changes - assumptions which are treated as facts.

For instance, suzeonline believes a few 'gun-happy rednecks' exist only in rural Australia, whereas the majority of shooters live in urban areas and are not 'rednecks'. Pelican you assert that guns instill a 'culture' or a 'psyche'; this is an assumption of moral superiority in contempt for gun owners. Club shooters learn strong self-discipline, and past generations saw great social value in gun ownership. Pelican further implies that the only contrast is between 'some' gun control and 'guns freely available'.

In Australia the media and activist groups use this false idea to promote controls with no reference to what is already in place, or how effective it is. Moral worth follows from pretending that any additional law is 'some' and the alternative is 'none'. This is deceptive rhetoric - either wilful ignorance, or deliberate deception.

We look at areas and times when gun control was far less and the shock horror anarchy did not happen until AFTER the gun control activists started hyperventilating. How was this possible? It seems that the whole model of human behaviour used in gun control thinking is flat wrong. People in the presence of guns in overwhelming majority, act exactly like they do in the presence of other objects that are potentially dangerous - they take care to minimise the risk of harm. Somehow the social conditions that changed and brought about gun massacres included an increase in media and activist pressure for gun control.

It seems that the very ideals of gun control proponents are publicly expressed in terms of contempt and even hate, ignoring evidence that their pet laws have little benefit and concealing that their arguments are founded in self-deceptive rhetoric. They deny the basics of human nature that they accept in regard to every other topic, such as sexuality, dancing or religous and political freedom of speech.

increasing gun ownership is not the way to build safer communities.
Pelican,
Agreed but an increase in licensed gun ownership with no persecution for using it in self-defence would create safer communities. Just imagine if Police, Security & Army couldn't defend themselves ?

You are way off the mark, suzeonline. There is more to Bob Katter than you think. But just to put you straight on the term "red neck".
The term was coined in Scotland centuries ago by those who resisted oppressive church behaviour. The would-be reformers wore red neck scarves to distinguish themselves (or make sure they didn’t shoot the wrong person). Hence they called themselves “red necks”. Many Scots migrated to the U.S. and they were a dominant ethnic group in many of the coal mining towns of the Appalachians. In the late 1800s, there was a lot of labour strife there, and the companies called in Pinkertons men to suppress the workers. It was pretty horrific – villages burned, women and children killed indiscriminately. The miners (many descendants of the Scottish “red necks”) who opposed the bosses and their hired thugs wore the red neck scarf again and termed themselves “red necks”. Only later was the term given other meanings. So - suzeonline – the “red necks” have always stood up for what was right. There is no shame in being a “red neck”. It is only those who are poorly educated who think it is useful as an insult. You had better hope that if you ever need someone to stand up for you, there will be a “red neck” there to protect you.
Bob Katter is no fool. The more parties we have the stronger our democracy will be.

Less than 1 percent of imports are checked, and of those, if you happened to stumble across one, do you know how difficult it is to tell one disassembled firearm piece mixed in with legitimate engine/plumbing/etc parts?

What about our huge border? If America can't close their border to drugs with a trillion dollar military, do you think we can close our borders to guns from PNG with exponentially more area to cover and exponentially less expenditure?

What about the fact that you don't need a gun to do damage to the public? You only need a basic education, or access to a library, or an internet connection and you can take out entire buildings with bombs - in fact Taliban and the like do this all the time without any of these things.

The fact is the limitation of firearms has naught to do with how safe you are. More people are killed playing sport every year than by firearms. More people die slipping in the shower. What do you want to do, ban information? Ban education? Ban leisure? Ban surfaces that are slippery when wet?

This "save us from ourselves" attitude is nothing short of pathetic, and your knee-jerk emotional anti-gun rhetoric is but one embodiment of this. Laws you know nothing about, about a subject you know nothing about, and you have the gall to call law abiding firearms owners savages? Gun laws make you feel safer, nothing more. If the laws have no impact on safety, then why ban them?

Road deaths stand at ten so far for the holiday weekend.

Had half this number been shot the Greens would be screaming for the banning of all firearms, and so would the rest of the anti brigade.

However most, if not all, of them own cars. . .

ChrisPer
We may disagree but I refute the assumption that there is any hatred or notions of superiority towards gun owners or those defending the rights to own a gun. One could argue the same about the constant disparaging remarks about inner city urbanites and non-rural people as though somehow this means one loses the right to comment. Gun ownership is not a rural issue only, in fact it is more relevant to cities as far as crime rates.

I grew up in the tropics and spent time in the outback and have relatives and friends living in rural Australia. I don't see them as inferior to me in any way.

My view is based on the statistics when comparing crime rates here and in those countries where guns are a big part of the culture.

I would not say Katter is a nice bloke but as with most Party structures, he probably won't be the only member influencing policy. His belligerent style will probably be reigned in by others. I actually like a couple of his ideas regarding foreign ownership and free trade but as yet not much in detail to really make any valid assessment.

The State of Maine in the USA has no gun laws to speak of, there is no registration, licences etc and people wear pistols openly without restriction.
Crime rate is lower than Australia.

Mexico and South Africa on the other hand have very strict gun laws but their crime rate is greater than that of the USA.

Perhaps there are other factors involved.

As Is Mise said, there are other reasons for crime. In fact, in America, the states with the most virtual zero restrictions have less crime than we have here. Though that would involve you knowing what you're talking about.

Pelican, you go ahead and talk about the Australian Party without any idea of what it entails!

There is no party line mate, apart from the issues listed. It doesn't matter what the hell katter thinks because members vote based entirely on their electorate (a system much closer to an actual working democracy than what we have with a party line), and with all the issues which are locked in, you know about prior to voting.

What do you think about my post? Is Mise's post? They essentially strike down your argument entirely, don't they? I'll add another;

When Clinton was in power, he, a left leaning anti-gun politician, commissioned a study in which the results found that guns were used 50 times more for self defence than for an illegal purpose. This is the part where you blow that off and say "oh but American's are cowboys and rednecks who shoot anything!" Then I tell you that there laws are the same as ours in regards to self defence - you need to genuinely believe that your life or the life of another is in danger. The only difference being that their government recognises it's best to have a prepared citizen, as opposed to a victim.

"Pelican, you go ahead and talk about the Australian Party without any idea of what it entails!"

Nobody yet knows what it entails. I am the same member of the democracy that you are and have a right to say that I like a couple of Katter's points but don't have enough info yet to be able to fully make an assessment.

In a democracy it is not only gun owners that have the right to voice opinions especially with little information. Unlike you I need more detail before making a voting decision.

I am all for improving democracy and would be happy to have a vote on gun ownership and live with whatever the majority wants even if I don't agree with it. What about you?

No your argument and Is Mises post do not knock down the anti-gun argument. If you have a country with more guns, more people will use them in self defence. The 50% statistic in this sense is meaningless when compared to other countries without guns. That is, less guns mean you don't need more guns to defend yourself.

Pelican,
If you're worried about losing Labor voters to The Australia Part, have no fear. For the simple reason that the Australia Party is only attractive to thinkers not followers. A real Labor doctrine supporter will easily be swayed to change but not ALP lemmings. You see, to care you need to have a sense of care & not just being heard to say so. Bob Katter actually does care, he doesn't just say so as do the present academic hangers on. His party will attract people who are concerned about the slide of their country towards utter mayhem under the leftist crowd.

Katter's party is doomed from the start. I predict that it will have some initial electoral success at the next election, based on Katter's personal appeal among an alienated minority in the electorate. However, it will then fall rapidly into electoral oblivion, given that the personality around whom the party is based is singularly unattractive to the great majority of Australians.

Remember 'Joh for PM' and Pauline Hanson? That's where Katter's sideshow is headed. Mind you, like them I'm sure the deranged Katter will provide some light entertainment in what are pretty grim times :)

Katter is the gift that keeps on giving to journalists and comedians alike.

Be interesting to see if either of the major parties adopt any of his policies al la Howard taking on the hapless Hanson's stance on immigration.

Australia is a Democracy in which all citizens are equal; the ordinary citizen is not allowed to possess anything for the purpose of self defence and neither is the Prime Minister or any of the other politicians.

The Prime Minister doesn't need to have any because he/she has armed guards who don't carry weapons for their own protection (that would be against the law) but they carry them for the protection of the Prime Minister or which ever politician is felt to need protection. These armed guards are paid by the taxpaying citizens who cann't afford to have their own armed guards.

When the President visits the 51st State he has armed guards as well. However his armed guards are not subject to the laws of the 51st State and may shoot to kill if they think that any of the 51st staters are an immediate danger to the life of the President.

"If you're worried about losing Labor voters to The Australia Part, have no fear. For the simple reason that the Australia Party is only attractive to thinkers not followers."

Playground style comment not worthy of any real response.

individual
What makes you think I am worried about losing Labor votes. Whether it is Labor and Liberal (Laberals) it doesn't really matter who is in power. It is only the hard nosed right wing that still thinks there is a significant difference. That sort of comment is just plainly not worthy in a democracy, the candidates that are voted in is what democracy is about, not the sport of winning and losing. People like you who hold that mindset are part of the problem in this country IMO.

Pelican,
Fair enough that's your opinion, after all this is online opinions. But I still think that after only a few years of Labor it is simply overwhelming how some people still defend Labor & or even vote for them after all the evidence of utter mismanagement. You see, it is a standard defence of supporters to say that there's no difference between the major parties because the supporters just can't get themselves to admit that their party is simply not good for our future. Why not just say so ? The coalition does not have a perfect track record by any means but at least they don't wreck prospects for our future. Labor does that, it's just that many can't see it. We're literally only an inch away from being swallowed up by system from which there'll be no chance of return. I just wish people would think a bit more about where we're heading unless we put a stop to it.. Maybe, just maybe if nothing else, the Australia Party can put the brakes on long enough for people to hear the screech & make them look up from their navel.

individual
I don't know why you think I support the mismanagement of the ALP on pink batts, BER and other disasters, although in some cases (BER) the damage is not as great as the Coalition propaganda would have you believe. Pink batts...yes no doubt thanks to PM Rudd pushing through the program without due care or oversight.

Like many others, I am disillusioned with the Labor Party and have put them as my preference for some years, however what makes you think the Coalition is any better. The policies are tweedledum and tweedledee except in one area. One party spends at will which is not always a negative if implementation is managed well, the other party takes the taxes and spends nothing on infrastructure. Which is worse?

The Australian Party is new, we do not know yet what they stand for but I am willing to listen. If there is in that Party policies around greater citizen participation, greater transparency and accountability it will gain votes. But if it is only lip service the AP will face the same level of cynicism. The unfortunate thing about policies around greater transparency is that when in power governments are less willing to be so closely scrutinised.

The ALP has made some small reforms to FOI for example, but in reality decisions to release are still held by bureaucrats for the most part who may not always be so forthcoming in their deliberations. And I have doubt the new party will foster individual rights over business interests or commercial-in-confidence interests in this area. The business of business is our business if decisions are being made that affect the citizenry. The AP has not released any info as yet on accountability.

I reckon the more parties split off from the current mob is not a bad thing. It is one way to scream from the rooftops that reform is needed.

My family, being working class, Irish (mainly) and Catholic (mainly) were supporters of the Labor Party.
My paternal grandfather was a founding member and was eventually expelled. My father was a member and was also expelled in his turn.
I was a member and resigned; didn't wait for my turn.
I didn't like the way that the party was run and they were expelled for sticking up for Labor principles years before I joined the Party.

I joined at the invitation of a sitting NSW Labor MP, who was engaged in a branch stacking exercise and who didn't understand, or had never read, the rules of the Party; I really took up the offer as a joke.

I haven't voted for Labor since before Whitlam and resigned during the reign of Keating.

"Nobody yet knows what it entails. I am the same member of the democracy that you are and have a right to say that I like a couple of Katter's points but don't have enough info yet to be able to fully make an assessment."

1. I never said which way I was voting (but thanks for the Strawman), I was merely pointing out that something you said is objectively wrong.
2. I stated that even in America they could only be used in a life threatening situation.
3. Explain why those argument don't knock it all down - criminals and mentally unstable people aren't affected at all by gun laws.
4. It's not black and white; just because I was pointing out flaws in your reasoning doesn't mean I'm some ultra-conservative flat earthing racist.

Dear individual,
You asked “Just imagine if Police, Security & Army couldn't defend themselves”. Both the British and New Zealand police forces are to a large extent are unarmed. I know the English have about 7% of their force trained in weapons. There was an attempt to increase this but with disastrous results. There were a number of high profile cases of innocent citizens being killed and the experiment was discontinued. A recent survey of Bobbies revealed that over 82% did not want increases in the number of those armed. I wish we could have retained this in Australia. There would have been many lives saved.

You might have other sources but to quote from Cukier and Sidel (2006) the figures for gun deaths per 100,000 in 2002 in England/Wales was 0.15 for homicide and 0.20 for suicide. For Australia with armed police but reasonably restrictive gun laws the figures for the same year were 0.24 for homicide and 1.34 for suicide.

The USA with both armed police and the most lax gun laws in the western world boasted figures of 3.98 for homicide and 5.92 for suicide. That is 20 times the homicide and suicide rates of England.

Dear Noogoora,

Actually suzionline was pretty spot on with her notion of what a 'redneck' is and if you really want a good take on it then what better a source than Joe Bageant, a self avowed redneck. 

While there may be a tenuous link to the 16th century Scots, by the period you speak of, the late 1800s, the term was deemed to be closer to what we recognize today. From Wikipedia; "A citation from 1893 provides a definition as "poorer inhabitants of the rural districts...men who work in the field, as a matter of course, generally have their skin stained red and burnt by the sun, and especially is this true of the back of their necks".

Joe is expansive about the 'border Scots' of the Appalachian mountains but not as idealistic as yourself. He recognized they were used as 'mongrel dog's' fighting the empire's battles with the Indians then its wars overseas.

Joe is quite defensive about his kin but fully accepts that religion, ignorance and racism feature strongly in their makeup. Sounds very much like parts of Katter's Queensland to me. I accept that some may want to wear the term 'redneck' with pride but give us and them a break and don't sugarcoat it. 

Regarding murder rates in the Western World.

Isn't South Africa in the West?

All per 100,000 for 2011

South Africa : 36.54
Mexico : 11.59
Bahamas : 22.4
Haiti : 21.6
Columbia : 40.0
Venesuala : 47.21
Brazil : 21.97
Peru : 3,21
New Guinea : 15.1
Russia : 14.18
USA : 5.22
Finland : 2.49
Sweden : 0.89
UK : 1.57
Switzerland : 0.72

http://chartsbin.com/view/1454

Some of the countries with the toughest gun laws have a high murder rate and others with easy access to firearms, like the USA, have a low rate in comparisson.
Just for fun compare Britain and Switzerland, one has tough laws and few legal guns the other has an automatic military rifle in most homes plus ammunition, and lots of the people have pistols, shotguns and hunting rifles.

Knives are the greatest killers in Australia after motor cars.

Did anybody catch Katter on Q&A? Neither sane nor pretty, but highly entertaining.

It's hard to believe anybody takes him seriously.

innocent citizens being killed ,
csteele,
Nobody gets killed by Police when no weapon wielding criminal is threatening someone. So, the reason why innocent bystanders unfortunately become victims is therefore due to the criminal not the police. Police don't just go around with weapons drawn. I don't have any figures but I'd not be surprised that the number of innocent lives saved is far greater because police carried a weapon. What you're saying in your argument is that if police weren't carrying weapons then somehow less lives would be lost ? Crime most certainly would rise greatly if police weren't carrying weapons. No matter which side of the argument you look at things the fact remains that if we don't deal with criminals harshly they simply take over. The evidence is here now. Lt's try it the other way for a year & see what happens.

"Did anybody catch Katter on Q&A? Neither sane nor pretty, but highly entertaining.

It's hard to believe anybody takes him seriously.Posted by morganzola, Tuesday, 14 June 2011 1:44:24 AM"

It would seem that enough people did to elect him to Parliament.

I saw Q&A, did you catch the bald headed guy who who was a lousy singer and who has transfered his lack of talent to politics?

Dear Is Mise,

You said "Just for fun compare Britain and Switzerland, one has tough laws and few legal guns the other has an automatic military rifle in most homes plus ammunition, and lots of the people have pistols, shotguns and hunting rifles."

Whatever anyone else says about you I want you to know I think you are a very kind person. I do not often get such gifts.

From Wikipedia the figures for gun deaths per 100,000 in England/Wales was 0.15 for homicide and 0.20 for suicide. For Switzerland with far more liberal gun laws the figures are 0.58 for homicide and 5.61  for suicide.  

So Switzerland basically has 4 times the homicide rate by gun and an unbelievable 28 times the rate of suicides by gun.

Are we having fun yet?

Why do gun advocates keep putting up Switzerland as a poster child? You will have one of two quite predictable responses to these figures. I am interested to see which one you choose.

Dear individual,

You claim "Nobody gets killed by Police when no weapon wielding criminal is threatening someone."

Poppycock!

"On 24 August 1985 John Shorthouse aged 5 was shot dead in a police raid on his home in Birmingham. The incident produced hostility towards the police over two days after John's death when a policewoman was dragged from her patrol car and beaten by youths. Following the Shorthouse case, West Midlands police abandoned its practice of training rank-and-file officers for firearms duties and formed a specialist squad."
Wikipedia.

At one stage over 17% of British police were authorized to use firearms, well up from a historic 5 %. Because of deep concerns over the number of deaths from police shootings the figure is now back to 7% with all other authorizations being revoked.

Had they been tightened earlier it have saved  Harry Stanley in 1999. A "painter and decorator, born in Bellshill near Glasgow, was walking home when he was shot dead by two Metropolitan Police officers following an erroneous report that he was carrying a sawn-off shotgun in a plastic bag. The officers challenged Mr Stanley from behind. As he turned to face them they shot him dead at a distance of 5 meters.  It later emerged that the plastic bag actually contained a broken table leg that Stanley's brother had just fixed for him."

And it might have helped Stephen Waldorf who "was shot by police hunting David Martin, who absconded from custody at Marlborough Street magistrates' court where he was due to face a charge of attempting to murder a police officer. Waldorf was critically injured in a police ambush in a west London street after he was mistaken for Martin. He was shot five times, and then pistol whipped by an officer who had attempted to shoot him in the head, but had already used all his ammunition." Wikipedia

I personally think Australia has missed the boat now which is a pity.

Morganzola;
Re Katter, these days politicians are expected to present like say,
Malcolm Turnbull. It was for that reason that Barnaby Joyce got
ridiculed the way he was by the media and government.
He got his billions and millions mixed up.
However if you ignore some of the colourful phraseology and look more
closely at the figures you find that his figures are correct.

The result is genuine problems can be pointed out by someone who is
not as polished as the media would like, but they are discounted as
buffoons.

It will pay us to look past all that and consider the facts.

Posted by csteele, Tuesday, 14 June 2011 9:20:15 AM

All that you have done is highlight the ineptitude of British armed police. In the opinion of many they are this way because of lack of familarity with firearms.

You think that Australia has missed the boat?

Do you prefer that our police be un-armed when facing dangerous criminals?

How many police would have died at the recent Queensland bank robbery when one policeman was shot (ultimately fatally) had they not been armed?

Only those who care nought for their fellows safety would expect policemen, or anyone else, to face armed criminals without an adequate means of self-defence.

Ah Is Mise,

The choices were to take up the challenge and look more deeply at the nuances within the English/Swiss figures or ignore them entirely and move to another issue. I had thought you might have attempted the former. Oh well. Just goes to show I'm not always the best judge.

To your last post which I see is high on emotion but devoid of figures, probably a good move. 

You say; "All that you have done is highlight the ineptitude of British armed police. In the opinion of many they are this way because of lack of familarity with firearms."

Rubbish. There was only one possibly accidental shooting in the examples I gave. The others came down to the difference in attitude and lethality between armed and unarmed officers.

Being a Victorian I have seen the toll of citizens and police officers exacted by an out of control gun culture within a police force. Thankfully those days are mostly behind us.

You ask; "Do you prefer that our police be un-armed when facing dangerous criminals?"

I don't think I am familiar enough with the Queensland shooting to comment specifically however I will say my preference is for armed and dangerous criminals to be confronted by highly trained, armor wearing, specialist police officers. I don't think we should be expecting the ordinary officer to be placed in such dangerous positions. To think otherwise is to have scant regard for the lives of both community members and police officers. Aren't you putting ideology ahead of human beings?

 I have a relative who is a police instructor. Part of the protocol when using a taser is to have a second officer behind the tasering member with his weapon drawn. My relative will nearly always take this position because there is only 10% of those he works with that he trusts in a tight situation to not put him in danger of being shot by one of his own.

This assessment comes from seeing how hundreds of them have reacted in training which they try to make as realistic as possible.

"To your last post which I see is high on emotion but devoid of figures, probably a good move.

You say; "All that you have done is highlight the ineptitude of British armed police. In the opinion of many they are this way because of lack of familarity with firearms."

Rubbish. There was only one possibly accidental shooting in the examples I gave. The others came down to the difference in attitude and lethality between armed and unarmed officers"

Ineptidude covers far more than accidents.

" I don't think we should be expecting the ordinary officer to be placed in such dangerous positions. To think otherwise is to have scant regard for the lives of both community members and police officers."

If only the criminals were so considerate to wait until the Specialist Squad is called out.
Bit like asking the enemy to hold off on the ordinary infantryman until the Commandos can be called.

"Aren't you putting ideology ahead of human beings?"

No, I'm a firm believer in every policeman and every law abiding citizen having the means of self-protection when confronted by a criminal attack.
There is only one thing that allows a 60 year old, 7 stone woman to face an 18 year old 12 stone criminal intent on her rape and murder, with equality and a better than even chance of saving her life.

However ideology in Australia says that she cannot possess anything for the purpose of defence and that she should ring '000', explain the situation to the clerk on the other end whilst the criminal obligingly waits for her to finish the call and give a description of him as well.

Dear Is Mise,

I have provided you with actual incidents plus figures, international examples, local perspectives etc and you come back with "Ineptidude covers far more than accidents"?

Sorry mate but that doesn't cut it.

Your ideology along with Bob's ten gallon hat belong in Texas. I could probably scrape up enough for a ticket for the both of you. You might feel safer there as one in 20 adults are under the control of the justice system either through direct incarceration, parole, or community based orders though the murder rate is an eyeopener.

Australia thankfully is headed in a different direction.

Dear CS

'Ineptitude' does cover it; in each of the cases that you cite, ineptness, possibly accounted for by lack of training, commonsense and unfamiliarity with firearms, allied, in the case of the pistol-whipping of an already wounded man, with brutality, shows lack of training and derelection on the part of senior officers who were responsible for adequate training; but they, in turn, are also victims of a 'no gun culture' so their lack of performance is understandable.

Your attempt at wit is appreciated but it would be more productive were you to adress the problems faced by small women when confronted by aggressive males with criminal intent.
How can women is this position protect themselves?

Bob Katter has an answer.

What utter garbage csteele, all from an ideology of the whimp.
It is a damn good thing it was not this way when we had to be defended by a bunch of kids in the milita at Kokoda.

Fortunately back then most kids had handled a rifle, & had in fact helped boost the family larder with rabbits. Guns aren't really such a big deal, if you aren't scared of your own shadow.

At 15, as a school cadet officer in the 50s, I was taking charge of a platoon of 30 kids on the rifle range without problem. Those kids could have defended us, as distinct from many kids today who are frightened to even touch a gun.

You & your like have excelled yourselves. Some kids must believe guns have teeth, thanks to scare mongering.

The only reason to disarm the general population is that a lousy government may fear the reaction of a population to some dreadful policy or law it may propagate. It is a wish of the control freak to make the population defenceless.

Today, when the cops are basically trained to collect revenue with a radar on the side of the road, it is only an idiot who expects help from them, in a timely manner, when needed. This is not the fault of the serving officers, but more a result of B grade government. However we now have to be our own first line of defence, in the home, more than at any other time in our history.

morganzola
As a Green vote I have to say I liked Katter on Q&A the other night. As much as he is an eccentric he is the first politician to raise the issue of privatisation, competition, selling off public assets without permission from the people-often to foreign companies, ownership of agricultural land and improving democracy by increasing the participation of citizens. Who else is doing that?

While I wouldn't like the gun ownership laws changed nor do I agree with live exports the party does have some refreshingly good ideas around food security and trade as per the AP website. I do wish though they would stop referring to the party as Katter's AP - it is too conceited and while that is probably not the intention, parties are about people not one person.

Without having done too much reading there is no indication of the AP's policies on same sex marriage (I am guessing against) despite the appearance of personal liberty nor is there much on environmental protection. While business is important the environment is also vital to the future sustainability and wellbeing of communities. And I don't mean the fishing, billy boiling, or 4 wheel driving aspect - that is okay but nothing about protecting old growth forests or river-health etc. Will the AP be like the two major parties and favour interests of big corps over the environment?

Hi pelican. While my personal response to Katter's performance is that he's an angry, I'll-mannered, scientifically illiterate buffoon, that persona is obviously attractive to some people. And as you say, Katter has some interesting, if populist, ideas that have some merit. Indeed, I have developed some genuine affection for the old toad in the 25 years I've lived in Qld.

However, have you seen his party website? If not, I imagine you'd be rather dismayed at their policies concerning environmental protection, same sex marriage, the supposed Christian basis of our culture, not to mention the rather coyly expressed right to personal protection, which doesn't actually mention guns but is consistent with the gun lobby's aspirations to turn us into America.

No doubt they'll have some initial success among the extreme right and those drawn by populist promises, but I still think they'll be a flash in the pan. Ultimately, most of their support will come from the lunar Right rump of Coalition supporters and the One Nation rabble who currently have nowhere to go. I predict they'll follow Pauline's mob down the gurgler, having provided some entertainment along the way.

At best I find Katter an entertaining diversion. I cannot listen to him for too long as his ignorance on many issues is too disturbing. However, I believe we need such a mix in out political system - better diversity than stagnation.

Dear Hasbeen,

Sheesh mate, kids stuff. At 15 I had already put in over two years at a military college in a foreign country, one which was constantly holding memorial services for the dead from the latest graduating year.

But even I am not stupid enough to think the youth of today doesn't present a pool of desensitized killing machines.

In 1997 14 year old Michael Carmeal took a pistol into a prayer meeting and with eight shots hit eight moving targets killing three. He had never fired a handgun in his life.

The following year four New York City cops, all very experienced, shot at one unarmed Amadou Diallo, firing forty-one bullets from barely fifteen feet away; fewer than half hit their mark.

I repeat the point I made in an earlier post, give me a generation of youth without the influences of violent movies and video games then you can come and talk to me about relaxing gun laws in this country.

We as a nation have recognized that the inappropriateness of weaponising each home in the modern world. We have looked at places like America and determined that a gun culture is not what we want for this country.

Until we are prepared to infringe the rights of Hollywood and the gaming companies plus the personal rights of their customers in this country our gun laws should remain.

The world has moved on from when we were young Hasbeen and these laws are an acknowledgment and accommodation of that truth. We may bemoan some of the changes, as I myself have had occasion to do, but we need to accept the sensible accommodations they have forced upon us.

Kokoda and a larder full of rabbits should be remembered fondly but not used to dictate the future.

csteele,

Seeing as we are apparently to leave the small woman to her fate with the large criminal who has broken in to her home; perhaps she may get to a kitchen knife and get in a lucky blow.

Let us instead consider a farmer's wife, all alone at the homestead 'cause hubby is in the far paddocks or has gone to town to a cattle sale.

We won't look at the remote possibility that she may be attacked by a criminal but at the much more probable scenario that a fox may attack her prize chooks.
Why should she not keep the shotgun handy and a couple of rounds in an apron pocket so that she can kill the feral nuisance?

She depends on the chooks for eggs and she has some hens that she has bred to exhibit at the next Show. Her chooks mean a lot to her.

Have some compassion and, at least, let her defend her fowls as well as doing the enviorenment a service by getting rid of one more fox.

Come on Is Mise, the farmers wife should yell csteele at the crook or the fox, that should fix them.

The same misguided control freak ideology applies in national parks.

A while back a couple of passing yachties took a couple of wild feral goats of an island in reef waters. They didn't even have a gun, they caught the things.

They had the book thrown at them, & were fined a fortune.

A couple of months later National Parks spent a fortune with a large team on that island shooting those same goats.

Yep, bureaucracy & the control freaks can not stand anyone doing anything without their consent

Dear Is Mise,

When the conversation turns to chooks you know we are talking about Queensland.

I have no problem with the farmer's wife using a properly registered firearm to protect her chooks. Besides being registered I would want to know that she had a license and had some form of formal training in its proper use including safe storage.

What I wouldn't like to see is her having to confront the sight of her son's brains splattered over his bedroom wall after she had inadvertently left the shells in her apron pocket, something that as we have seen is far more likely in a country with liberal gun laws such as Switzerland.

Dear Hasbeen,

This is a letter that appeared on a forum this year;

Pest control in Queensland 
by: Zane

Hi there,

I am interested in helping any farms out here in Queensland to reduce feral game numbers. Im not sure if this is the place to look but i thought I would give it a shot. Myself and 2 other close friends are looking for land to hunt on. The three of us have a lot of experience and are safe, friendly hunters. We all hold firearms licenses and are members of the SSAA shooting club. We would be happy to supply any information required. 

We have our own hunting gear/rifles and would love to assist any farmers here in Queensland and North NSW with any feral animals that need to be reduced/eliminated. We are based in Brisbane.

We wait in anticipation for any feedback or advice anyone could give us in regards to this.

Cheers,
Zane

These guys felt the need to highlight how safe, experienced, qualified and responsible they were. This is what the public want from those who want to enjoy the sport of shooting and these guys knew that.

If our gun laws help encourage that type of responsible behaviour then why should any of us be complaining?

I think we have got them pretty right and only those ideologues with a Charlton Heston picture over the mantle piece seriously want a move to an American style gun regime.

It is enough to force one to consider if such views are possibly anti-Australian.

csteele,

The farmer's wife is a law-abiding woman and she has a licence, has done the safety training and takes part in club target shooting at the range. She is also a J.P. and is involved in a lot of civic activities. She was also for some years the local Coroner.

However by the time she gets the safe keys, opens the safe and takes out the shotgun then opens the lock on the ammo box and gets a couple of shells out then runs outside, the fox has killed most of her hens and has left.

I wouldn't be surprised if next time she has the gun handy and thus becomes a law breaker.

What if it had been something more serious than a fox?

Dear Is Mise,

I'm a touch confused, you might need to explain a little further.

Are you saying the woman should be allowed to leave a loaded shotgun within handy reach around the house just so she might get a crack at a cheeky fox or in the very unlikely event she had an intruder?

I think she might need to look at securing her hen house a little better.

I know how cunning foxes can be. We lost our prized fowl to one a few years back. However it wouldn't have warranted me having the gun and ammo at the ready. Perhaps chooks are more highly valued in the sunshine state.

CS,

Who said any thing about her having a loaded gun, the gun is within handy reach and she has a couple of rounds in her pocket.
Just as her husband does, legally, while he is out working in the back paddock.
Her work is mainly in the house, why should she be discriminated against?

What if she is menaced by some criminal?

A farmer's wife was abducted and murdered in NSW in the past.
There is a criminal being kept in jail in NSW at the moment for having done just that.
Only a few months ago a child was mauled and bitten by a fox near Tenterfield, NSW, the kind hearted parents had seen it around the house but didn't shoot it.

Dear Is Mise,

If you are holding this incident up as an argument for more lax gun laws then I'm afraid our exchange might need to be retired as we have crossed the line into farce.

The Harvey's had a shot gun which subsequent to the attack they used and missed the fox. But you seem to have no thought than the action of sending an unattended three year old to scare off a wild creature with teeth speaks to the issue of parental care rather than gun issues? For all we know young Tom cornered the fox and if so the attack was predictable.

As to a farmer's wife being abducted any incident such as that is just horrific but to use it as justification for less rigid gun laws is silly.

I still remember the Faraday School hostage drama in Victoria in 1972;

“Edwin John Eastwood and Robert Clyde Boland entered the school armed with a sawn-off shotgun at about 3:00pm, and forced the teacher, 20-year-old Mary Gibbs, and her six pupils (girls aged between 5 and 10) into a red delivery van. They were driven off into a remote area in the bush. The kidnappers left a note at the school threatening to kill all of the hostages unless a $1,000,000 cash ransom was paid.”

Under your logic we should be arming our teachers or at the very least having weapons at schools for easy access just in case it was attempted at another school, as indeed it was.

While undoubtedly terrifying for teachers, students, parents and the community there were no call to arm staff.

I invite you to be thankful and supportive of the stance this country has taken with regard to gun laws because I have lived enough of my life overseas to know it is worthy of respect.

"As to a farmer's wife being abducted any incident such as that is just horrific but to use it as justification for less rigid gun laws is silly"
OK, allowing a farmer's wife or anyone elses to be able to protect themselves against criminals is silly.
Is it not just as silly to not allow them to protect themselves against wild dogs?
People are allowed to carry a walking stick but not if they intend to use it as protection against a dog.

Our laws are riddled with stupidities, particularly our gun laws.

In Europe, Britain and New Zealand shooters are encouraged to use 'silencers' (noise suppressors), here it is a criminal offence to possess one; they are however mandatory on cars.
Possession of a 'bullet-proof vest' is a criminal offence, yet it is a piece of safety equipment, note that it is not an offence to wear bullet-proof protective head gear.

A friend of mine has three original Brown Bess muskets (as used at the time of the First Fleet) that he doesn't have to have registered nor need a licence to possess, he also has another one that he shoots so it must be registered and he must have a licence to use it. He can use the others, on one off occassions with the payment of a $35 fee per occassion, if for some reason he wanted to fire two of them on the same occassion then the fee is $70.
How does that make society safer?

A person whose licence is for primary production but is not endorsed for target shooting may go along to the range and shoot in the same detail as those whose licence is for target shooting and he may shoot at the same targets. He may not however have his score recorded for the purpose of taking part in a match with the others.

Makes Australia a Safer Country.

"I still remember the Faraday School hostage drama in Victoria in 1972;

“Edwin John Eastwood and Robert Clyde Boland entered the school armed with a sawn-off shotgun at about 3:00pm, and forced the teacher, 20-year-old Mary Gibbs, and her six pupils (girls aged between 5 and 10) into a red delivery van. They were driven off into a remote area in the bush. The kidnappers left a note at the school threatening to kill all of the hostages unless a $1,000,000 cash ransom was paid.”

Under your logic we should be arming our teachers or at the very least having weapons at schools for easy access just in case it was attempted at another school, as indeed it was."

Definitely. Some teachers at all schools should be trained to shoot to kill and to possess adequate arms.
The next attempted abduction might not turn out as well.

There is a saying that when seconds count the police are only minutes away.

Dear Is Mise,

So is this what Bob Katter supporters really want for this country? Armed teachers in all our schools?

Why shouldn't it be called Bob Katter's America Party because that what they want for us.

There was an armed guard at Columbine High School at the time of the shootings, now there are four plus metal detectors and 24 hour surveillance at a cost of four million dollars per year. Asked why he thought it happened a Columbine teacher replied "Anger and guns".

If this is Katter's mob's vision, then they have a gall to calling the Greens 'dangerous ideologues'.

Not in my country mate!

Dear CS,
Not in your country, OK, that's fair enough but what is your solution to criminal attacks on schools?
Not what the clean up squad does afterwards, not what the Courts award the perpetrators in punishment for their crime, but what can be done immediately to stop the criminals.
A call to '000' isn't going to be quick enough.

What would you suggest is a way to neutralize an attack upon school children that doesn't allow the criminals time to do whatever they intend?

Instead of derision give us something constructive that may overcome the time lapse between the start of an attack and the time that a Police response can be expected.

Is Mise is right. Kids who are found spraying graffiti in schools shall be shot on sight, lest they get away before the cops arrive.

And there I was thinking that Katter is extreme.

morganzola,

There is nothing to stop some deranged person in Australia from committing a massacre in one of our schools.
They don't need a gun.

How would you stop such a person?

Be constructive and you might just give society the idea that will stop a future tragedy.

The world has moved on from when we were young Hasbeen.
csteele,
too right, due to moron educators our young have successfully been turned into morons as well. Moved on indeed, but what direction I ask ?

How would you stop such a person?
is Mise,
Another, sane person with a gun would certainly prevent him/her from letting off more than three rounds.

For those who think that it can't happen.

"The Osaka School Massacre took place on June 8, 2001, at Ikeda Elementary School, an elite primary school affiliated with Osaka Kyoiku University in Osaka Prefecture, Japan.

At 10:15 that morning, 37-year-old former janitor Mamoru Takuma entered the school armed with a kitchen knife and began stabbing numerous school children and teachers. He killed eight children, mostly between the ages of seven and eight, and seriously wounded thirteen other children and two teachers. Takuma was later convicted and sentenced to death by hanging. The sentence was carried out on September 14, 2004. The Osaka School Massacre was the second largest mass murder, along with the Matsumoto incident, in recent Japanese history, exceeded both of the crimes only by the fatalities caused in the Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway. This incident, however, was set apart by the young age of the victims, by its occurrence at a school, and by the murderer's history of mental illness. Because of these factors, the Osaka School Massacre raised questions in Japan about the country's social policies regarding the treatment of mental illness, the rights of criminals and victims, and the accessibility and security of Japanese schools.

After the attack, Yoshio Yamane, the principal administrator of the school, announced that it would receive a security guard, an at-the-time unheard-of feature in Japanese schools. Additionally, J-Pop artist Hikaru Utada rearranged her song Distance in honor of Rena Yamashita, one of the murdered schoolgirls (because of an essay contest she had won, talking about how she respected and wanted to become like Hikaru), retitling it Final Distance. Exactly seven years later, a similar stabbing massacre called the Akihabara massacre took place, though not in a school but in the streets of Tokyo."

Dear individual,

Moronic behaviour, mmm, let's see.

If I were to give an example it would be Americans following the advice of the NRA that the solution to school shootings is not greater gun control but to put armed guards at every school.

Further only a moron would think that any relaxing of gun laws in Australia would not potentially increase the risk of school shootings in this country.

I do not want a Columbine in my country.

Dear Is Mise,

Hells bells mate you are a fearful person. I live in a country community where we don't feel we need to lock our doors or our cars so perhaps I'm biased but I rail against that American import of gated communities. I would much rather pay more taxes for better social spending, including mental health, and strong policing than armed guards or guns at every school.

Your stance is like legislating that everyone should be taking chemotherapy as a preventative measure against cancer.

As to keeping weapons handy within homes there are nearly a couple of thousand legal guns stolen through burglaries each year, mostly crimes of opportunity, and around sixty of those will be ultimately used in the commission of a serious crime. Ensuring the safe storage of weapons is something I don't think we can afford to be relaxed about just on the off chance we might nail the odd fox. I think every measure to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals should be supported, even by yourself.

Dear CS,

That's all very well but how would you stop a criminal or a mentally deranged person, armed and apparently intent on killing children from doing so?

How would a teacher stop him/her?

If it happens in this country then it is once too often.

You have already mentioned the abduction in Melbourne, how could it have been stopped?

How could the stabbings in the school in Japan have been stopped?

Once he had stabbed one child something should have been done. What?

Note that he used a kitchen knife; any legislative suggestions?
Apart from the utterly useless one that NSW has that makes it an offence to carry a knife.

I also live in a small country town, in NSW, and every one has locks on their petrol caps, locks their cars and their houses.

Especially after the last abduction and rape of a school girl.

Criminals, by definition, are people who ignore the law.

morganzola
Yes it is a pity that among some of the good stuff being put forward, there is no recognition of the importance of environmental protection. I note also Katter has recently dismissed same sex marriage thus continuing the discrimination.

Katter was a bit OTT about live exports recently which means he is also capable of spin - saying one minute that if Australia doesn't sell live beef to Indonesia someone else will, then following it up with faux indignation about 8 million people starving in Indonesia if we don't export (despite the fact that many Indonesians are vegetarian). Katter can't have it both ways.

The Greens would do well to focus some of their engergies on outlining their other policies on free trade, privatisation etc. As important as the environment is, lack of campaigning on other issues means many Australians are unaware of Green policies overall.

I do not want a Columbine in my country.
csteele,
The way this country is heading you will get one like it or not. No one is advocating a relaxing of gun laws. Where did you get that ? What is needed are smarter gun laws. There is no justifiable need for a .357 magnum to shoot at paper targets in a shooting club. A 22 or 9 mm is more than ample to show off your shooting prowess. On the other hand it would be ridiculous to stop a bush walker or a farmer to carry less than a 222 in the hope of defending himself against an irate boar or a lunging croc coming out of the scrub while looking out for one in the water. A guard should have at least a disabling caliber.
This is logic, not a relaxing or proliferation of guns. I'd be interested to see Australia Party policy on this.

According to the ABC TV News last night there had been 12 dog attacks against human beings in the previous 24 hours.

Dog attacks are going to happen again, so is it not time that the ridiculous law that makes it illegal for a person to carry a stick, with the intention of self-protection against a dog, be repealed or at least modified?

Some of those attacked needed medical attention; the worst attack was upon a 10 year old girl outside a supermarket and the two men who pulled the dogs off her were also bitten, one of them badly, if having the teeth go through trouser leg and into the flesh is considered badly.

Is Mise,

Are you suggesting that we should become accustomed to people walking around brandishing sticks - in the unlikely event that they are attacked by a dog?

I can see it now - restaurants and cinemas would have repositories for each person's stick (just like a cloak room) You could deposit it on entry and retrieve it upon exit, and once back out in the cur-infested badlands, could wield it with impunity.

Good Grief.

Is mise,

to use a cliche "there are no bad dogs, just bad dog owners."

Dogs should not be running free.

Owners should qualify for pet ownership.

I was attacked by a dog when very young.

My German Shepherd saved me from attack by 2 men brandishing an axe some years ago and all she had to do was growl.

In summary, would prefer to go out with a dog than a stick.

:P

Tres drole, Poirot, tres drole.

I am glad that you can see mirth in children being attacked by dogs and that we are not legally allowed anything with which to fend off an attack or to protect ourselves.

As for their being a law against dogs running lose, it doesn't seem to be working.
When the State can guarantee that no person will be attacked by a dog then it would be ethical to prohibit people from having anything with which to protect themselves, but pointless.

Further to the above:
The two men in the article below went to the girl's assistance.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/17/3246370.htm
(quote)
Pit bulldogs attack four at shopping centre Posted Fri Jun 17, 2011 10:41am AEST

Fairfield West 2165

Police are searching for the owner of two pit bulldogs that attacked four people at a shopping centre in Sydney's west last night.

A 10-year-old girl was among those the dogs set upon outside the centre at Fairfield West about 8:30pm (AEST).

The girl, her mother and two men, aged 48 and 39, were taken to hospital for treatment of bite wounds.

Police believe the dogs broke free after a man tied them up and went into the shopping centre.

They are now searching for the man, who returned shortly afterwards and caught the dogs before leaving the area.

He is described as being of Caucasian appearance, about 25 years old and 175cm tall with a slim build.

Police have asked anyone with information to contact Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000. (unquote).

Or are you happy to see ten year olds bitten and perhaps disfigured or killed by dogs so that you can sleep safer knowing that the general citizenry are forbidden to carry sticks?

24 hours + and no responses.

Run out of mirth, have we?

Pity that I couldn't show the picture, really funny with the blood an' all.

Dear Is Mise,

Now you remind me of a nun astride a clown.

Dear CS,

Well, one cannot do anything about the vagaries of your mind, however could you concentrate for a little and tell us how you would overcome the slight problem that people who are attacked, by man or beast, have no means of protecting themselves?

The police cannot be everywhere and by the very nature of personal attack cannot possibly stop it, unless it be upon themselves.

Don't throw in the red herring that people can learn to defend themselves with their hands because against a large dog the techniques required require a lot of strength, which not all have.
Some legal opinion holds, that under our present laws, learning to defend oneself with the hands shows intent to possess a means of self defence, and that that is illegal.

Bob Katter is right to look at the Law in regard to self defence and it will win him votes.

What does the victim of a Home Invasion In Progress do when he/she finds that the 'phone isn't working?

Write a letter?

Dear Is Mise,

Virgin on the ridiculous?

"Don't throw in the red herring that people can learn to defend themselves with"

Why on earth not?

Might be safer than sticks. Could smell a touch in summer but hey, if you are serious about self defense then that is a small price to pay.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCwLirQS2-o

Next time there is a home invasion and someone is killed or a woman raped or the next time someone is savaged by a dog, have a hearty laugh.
Enjoy yourself.

csteele

Thanks for the link, I went on to watch the lumberjack song (the complete sketch) and laughed and laughed.

Is mise

You want guns for the very worst of reasons. Like power, guns should not be in the hands of those who want them.

"Is mise

You want guns for the very worst of reasons. Like power, guns should not be in the hands of those who want them.

Posted by Ammonite, Tuesday, 21 June 2011 11:11:55 AM"

Well, On-Line-Psychiatry, what next, mind reading?

What a curse it would be to have the power to defend oneself or one's loved ones.
Still I suppose that you might be right all those thousands of young Australians who volunteered in two world wars didn't want guns. I suppose that they thought that the enemy would listen to sweet reason and that some conflict resolution techniques would be all that they would need.
I'll let you in on a little secret, Ammo, I crave the power of a stick for self defence.
There is nothing like the rush that one gets from having a good malacca in hand when one is confronted by an angry Pekingese dog.

What's your objection to the citizens being allowed something for self defence?
What's your solution to the slight problem of home invasion?
What's your solution to rape?

Or perhaps, like the other commedians, instead of an answer you have a joke to tell?

Have we come to the end?

I was looking forward to a few more comedy turns.

Custard

The Australian Party will do enormously well at least to begin with.
The word is on just grounds cattleman forum Bobs got all the answers.
They are being sent there in droves by the industry. Problem is Bob doesn't have all the answers and is making things a whole lot worse steering these farmers ( those we have left) down the road of false promises in my opinion. So far their bright idea ( or at least one of them) is to dump two thousand head on the lawns of parliament.
Not what i call productive.