So now a judge has ordered the release of serial rapists Robert Fardon. He is described by philologists as still a significant risk to the community. The Queensland Attorney-General is considering appealing the decision.

The details of this case are not my point, what concerns me is that these judges appear to be more interested in the rights of the dangerous criminal, than the public the whole legal system is supposed to protect.

To my mind there should never be a possibility of a serial rapists. Surely if a convicted rapist is released after a sentence, then reoffends that should be that. They should be locked up & the key thrown away. Any desire to rehabilitate the criminal should not even be considered if there is even a minor chance of reoffense.

In these cases we often see a string of rapes going back 40 years or more. I want to know who is deciding to let them out, & what penalty do they stand to suffer if their decision results in another woman suffering rape, or even murder.

It is about time that justice was fully served. It is only by applying serious penalties to the bleeding hearts who let these people out again & again, will we make these people consider the public, & make our streets safe.

Well, the QLd Govt should make that moron Judge responsible for everything that criminal does. Put the Judge in jail as this would seem to be the only way to make these morons (do-gooders) think.
It needs to be made absolutely clear to Australians that this Judge is obviously a leftie who wants to tarnish the Qld Coalition.

I too am stunned at the disregard for publics safety involved here.
Judges and magistrates seem not to take the victim and our thoughts in to consideration.
Recent events warn, be very careful if this person comes to live near you.

If this rapist was raping men, he would never get out of jail.

It seems like a stupid and wrong decision to let a serial rapist out into the community where he can be expected to repeat.

However the statement, "It needs to be made absolutely clear to Australians that this Judge is obviously a leftie who wants to tarnish the Qld Coalition." is rubbish. We know nothing about the judge's politics or his or her motives.

Leftie or rightie is often just name-calling used against people we disagree with.

if one reads the judge's decision or talks to the judge one may know why the judge did it. Otherwise nothing is obvious except a criminal was released who apparently shouldn't have been released.

'If this rapist was raping men, he would never get out of jail.'

He wouldn't want to. That's the whole point of gaol.

Smart accountants can keep thieves from paying taxes.
Reporters can ruin people's reputations - unfairly.
Smart lawyers can keep killers out of jail.
Judges can manipulate the law. The media can manipulate
the news.

For granting liberties to individuals, our society pays
the price in the deviance of those who abuse it.

That is totally unfair & uncalled for Suse. Didn't you notice all the men are incensed at this stupidity.

I don't know why you don't understand most men want to protect women. That is one of the reasons most of us don't like Muslims. If sharia law applied in Oz, the men would have more rights, you would be living in a personal tent, & some fool judge would make you.

You should also consider, it is often the female magistrates & judges who are softest on these criminals.

Suseonline, "If this rapist was raping men, he would never get out of jail"

Once again you believe that all men are responsible. That includes the men posting on this forum. That is madness.

How many hundreds of times have you posted similar offensive beliefs on this forum alone and been challenged for it?

You can't help your passionate anti-male bigotry. You would be salivating if you could allege middle-aged, white, Christian male. That would be the big trifecta for you. Your bundle of supreme, obsessive hatreds in one pack.

You are a nurses aid? Not in a gerontological ward admitting men I hope! In all sincerity you do need to see someone competent, soon. It would definitely be affecting your relations at work and in life generally.

Suseonline>> If this rapist was raping men, he would never get out of jail<<

Suse I don't think that is right. I do believe all men would deem the rape of a female by a male to be more injurious than male on male rape.

We "blokes" have an inbuilt empathy regarding assaults on females by males. The first thing that comes to mind re man on man rape for me is "you should have resisted and fought harder sport.....but I have never thought that regarding male/female rape.

This mind set I carry is also displayed in teacher pupil seductions. If the student is female I think "send the male offender to jail.

If the student is a male and the seducer a woman, I think, lucky little bugger....Suse I know it makes no sense, but it is rational to me.

I truly, honestly, think we a really victims to PC in this matter.
No way I want to flog offenders, but too I do not want re-offenders on our streets.
At the time of white settlement in this country punishment was very cruel.
We rightly stopped that.
But quite absent from consideration at parole hearings are the victim's, past and yes future.
In every issue minority voices are heard.
And in my view those releasing these folk are minority's.
Few have to live next door to them, even less ever see a rape victim.
On balance some who let these folk free are without care for the community and not fit to hold the position inflicting them on us.

Suse>>'If this rapist was raping men, he would never get out of jail.<<

Houellebecq >>He wouldn't want to. That's the whole point of gaol<<

The girls in goal get it even better Hoully....

A man I knew was raped as a teenager by two men. Even though he lived a seemingly normal life after that it apparently preyed on his mind. One day he drove out in the desert, and his body was found in the car two weeks later. He had run a hose into the car and used exhaust fumes to finish himself off. There was no suicide note. He had a girl friend and a good job. The only reason that anyone could determine was that he couldn't get over the rape. A rape can be horribly damaging to the victim regardless of the victim's sex.

david f,
The system is flawed. A judge cannot be sacked for making a bad decision. In fact he cannot be sacked at all for anything unless both houses of parliament sit together to order his removal. Never happened and never will.
Judgeships are rewards for years of loyal service to the "Bar" especially for the government side.
The system needs to be fixed

Dear chrisgaff1000,

I was not defending the system. I just objected to the name-calling in a statement ascribing a particular political outlook and a particular motivation to the judge. We really don't know why the judge made the decision.

We have a mechanism to decide whether it is a good or a bad decision. That mechanism is to take a decision to a higher court. There should be a mechanism to get rid of a judge who makes too many bad decisions.

Belly>> On balance some who let these folk free are without care for the community and not fit to hold the position inflicting them on us<<

China there is a state in the US where recidivist child molesters are held in perpetuity after they have served their time. The facility gives them ongoing treatments until they are deemed as safe (I personally believe castration is the only fail safe solution and I am not being flippant).

If they choose to not participate in the program they stay locked up there, the perimeter is secured like a prison but the facilities are like a communal motel and not a jail because technically they have served their time.

This is the closest that I have seen to a solution on letting predators back into the community....but I can’t live with the idea of the state being able to detain you on “suspicion” of ongoing behaviour.....but I am pleased that the child molesters are locked up in the US.

Hasbeen,

Thank you for this thread.

I am wondering if you and others here have had a chance to read the outcomes of the review by Judge Ian Callinan, Justice of The High Court of Australia, that was instituted following the Jill Meagher case.

Here is a news article,

http://tinyurl.com/Judge-Callinan-review

No need for me to add more except to say that the recommendations concerning violent criminals, serious sex offenders and burglars should be considered across all State and Territory jurisdictions.

"The details of this case are not my point"

So you and the rest all condemn this man, for something he has not done yet, and castigate the judge, all while refusing to look at the details of the case.

You do know what a judge does dont you? They look at the details of a case and then make their decision.
Pity you lot couldnt do the same.

Who else do you think should be locked up before they actually commit the crime?

Do you understand anything about how our justice system works?
Or is this just another reason for a mindless rant to make you feel better?

mikk,

Did you get a chance to read my post above yours?

I see Suse still hasn't stopped doing 'drive-bys'. Stand up and qualify your statement no matter how ignorant and ridiculous it is.

Reoffending should result in mandatory chemical castration, no ifs, no buts, no excuses.

There are many laws that need to be revamped to remove any grey areas, this being one of them.

Offenders, even potential offenders need to understand, WITHOUT DOUBT, the consequences of their actions.

Another mob that need to be brought to task is the media, as far too many cases are now subjected to trial by media.

And if he re-offends the judge should be locked up as well.

rehctub,
Do you actually think that chemical castration will sole the problem?
Think again brother.
The offense is the physical manifestation of a pathological psychosis not the product of over active sex glands.
The desire to dominate, humiliate and control will still be there all that will change is the Modus Operandi.
The only answer is second offense either the death penalty or life without parole in prison which would cost a fortune so death heads the list.

What sort of fool are you mikk. It is a wonder they let you out alone.

I did not want to discuss this particular case so we were not discussing this judges action. That should have been obvious even to the simple minded.

The legal profession are the most hidebound of people. They follow the leader, [precedent], no matter how wrong it is. This particular judge is doing just that, & in this case is only guilty of being a member of his profession.

Without attacking him personally, I wished to attack the whole system. It is a pity some are too dumb, or hidebound themselves to be able to do that.

Don't walk down any dark streets, you'll probably run into some mugger on his fifth rotation through the parole system.

StG "And if he re-offends the judge should be locked up as well."

Good one StG, a 'drive-by' if ever I saw one!

ChrisGaffe1000 is right in saying that rape is not so much a sexual offence, as it is a dominant violence offence.
The problem with re offenders is that the Justice system can only give sentences allowed them by the current laws. The laws are agreed on by politicians.

I don't agree with capital punishment, but I do agree with life sentences for repeat offenders of any violent crime.

As far as I am concerned, serial rapists and paedophiles can't be rehabilitated, and should remain in jail for life.

If jail capacities are a problem, have non-violent prisoners released into home detention earlier, so we can afford to keep the other disgusting things in jail until death.

......The only answer is second offense either the death penalty or life without parole in prison which would cost a fortune so death heads the list.

No argument from me Chris, BUT, they must be caught in the act by persons of authority, as circumstantial evidence, unless it's video, is not sufficient to take ones life.

If we want to look you can find in this thread/in real life a defense of the perpetrator.
Well not out right, but concerns for their rights seem to surface.
Let us look at a well known and understood history of male on male rape.
While not only the Catholic Church, it for sure stands head and shoulders above all others.
Yet my respected friend Suseonline few even saw/see a prison cell.
We condemn our selves to suffer yet again, by our concerns are we being fair to those who rape.
Maybe the victims should be the judges in future courts.
We must constantly confront in all matters we govern not for the worst/minoroty, but for the most.

rehctub

"No argument from me Chris, BUT, they must be caught in the act by persons of authority, as circumstantial evidence, unless it's video, is not sufficient to take ones life."

Funny, that is exactly what we used to do when the courts failed. One by one the legal system forced change so that legal sanction replaced physical sanction and we (the "squads"became obsolete.
Some of the best "street sweepers" were even locked up.
Nowadays we either snipe from the sideline or give guided tours of Kings Cross crime hotspots.

Personally I think the tragedy of the whole prison system is not the re-offence rate of those released, or even of the shambles that the parole system seems to be. The tragedy for me is that in society we want and hope that people will receive a change of heart, a new desire to do good, not re-offend, etc. But we expect a small cell surrounded by other criminals to do it? That makes as much sense as not wanting our children to get fat so we put them in a room with gluttonous children and then let them loose in a lolly shop.

To fix the system, we need to create change within the individual, and that does not come from punishment alone, but from springing inside their hearts the desire for redemption, and that that redemption comes from abiding by the law. Some would say religion can do that, so would say that a "spiritual awakening", or even karma if that is what it takes. But they need to learn, from experience, that doing good things will bring good results.

Interesting article on the vetting of sexual offenders and State regulation.

http://tinyurl.com/vetting-sexual-offenders

I see some of the notorious Skaf rape gang have been released on parole 20 years earlier than their sentence called for.

This was a case where the offenders were serial rapists before first caught. In this case the judge saw complete evil in some of the criminals, & gave suitable sentences, only to be second guessed by some bleeding heart parole board.

I would love to be a fly on the wall to learn if it is the bleeding hearts, or politicians pressuring them to let more out of crowded prisons. I won't say overcrowded, as I think they are far too feather bedded as it is.

If ever there was a case for outsourcing anything, prisons are it. I reckon the Indonesian would be happy to accommodate our prisoners for about a quarter of what it costs us, & that would definitely be a serious deterrent to repeat offending among our criminals.

Hasbeen - Quote "If ever there was a case for outsourcing anything, prisons are it. I reckon the Indonesian would be happy to accommodate our prisoners for about a quarter of what it costs us, & that would definitely be a serious deterrent to repeat offending among our criminals."

I like that idea, I hope Tony get to hear that.

I as you say believe that would be a very big deterrent, repeat offenders sent to Indonesia

Hasbeen I am reasonably sure the single member of that gang of filth released, was not 20 years before the due date.
Something tells me his parole date, set on sentencing was up.
We should not however overlook the fact his release was delayed.
Because he was not allowed to live in the same house as his brothers, members of a gang.
CG1000 seems to want justice handed out by police in the dark streets and lanes, bashing offenders and some times innocent.
That may be the reason some of his past work mates are in prison.
It is states who have the responsibility to act in this matter.

Belly
So you would rather have rapists (sadistic & racial} returned to the streets rather than locked up forever or put down like the mongrel dogs they are.
So you rather see sadistic murderers (psychopaths)returned to the streets rather than locked up forever or put down like the mongrel dogs they are.
So you would rather see vicious bash artists and women beaters ( pathetic bullies and unrepentant stand-over merchants)returned to the streets rather than locked up forever or put down like the mongrel dogs they are.
No I don't think you would and nor would your families.
You people never complained when the streets of Sydney and Melbourne were safe to walk at any time of night simply because there were a number of willing coppers out there prepared to dispense street justice when necessary.
Most of the times we acted under orders somewhat vague they might have been and you would be surprised where those orders came from.
Today you have no one protecting your back except a few wet 'behind the ears' GDs and petite little girls who couldn't punch their way out of the proverbial paper bag.
You want it the modern way mate well you got it so suck it up and learn to live with it and when your wife or daughter gets raped or bashed or robbed don't complain about the few who stood up on your behalf.

You're living in the wrong place, Chris. You could quite happily top any one you want in some third world hole somewhere. Plenty of them around.

Unfortunately, in the semi-civilised societies everyone gets a chance ... whether you or me like it or not. Do I want to see convicted sex offenders - the loosest term of offence you can get - 'walking the street'? No, of course not. If something happens to someone I care for no amount laws will stop me from getting to them. BUT, we live in a society where people get a chance. That's the law. That's where you live. That's what you HAVE to live with. No amount of bleating into a spew bucket like this place will change that.

IF you have differing opinions on how things should work, campaign for a place in parliament. Run petitions. Run campaigns against magistrates, but the tough guy bleating here is boring.

StG " If something happens to someone I care for no amount laws will stop me from getting to them..."

That sort of comment/threat makes you no better than the criminals that disgust you.
We all feel extreme anger, and consider violence, at some time in our lives.
The difference between us and the violent criminal, is that we don't act upon those feelings...

Suseonline is right StG not the first here in this thread to say something like that.
And too it will be the Police who mother those affected by these dreadful acts , taking the need for vengeance away, they do a great job in counseling us not to waste our own life by such acts.
Derin Hinch, yet again, is confronting a posible prison term, for giving us information the madness of PC says we should not have.
Ample room exists to force change on our lawmakers and givers, and change [dumping the lot] on those unthinking fools on parole boards returning those boards to the victims hands.

Makes me no better than 'someone that raped my child'? Quite obviously going to disagree there.

Suseonline
Don't worry...
StG " If something happens to someone I care for no amount laws will stop me from getting to them..."
...is the standard line of crap innocuous backsliders promote to inflate their petty egos.
I heard it every day in the job. Never saw one action though.
People expect the law to protect the. Unfortunately that is not what the law is there for.
The law is the to protect the society not the individual.

Sex crimes have been heavily politicised for years. It is impossible to have an intelligent, reasonable discussion without the entrenched mantras of political correctness taking over and 'sides' being formed along gender war and party lines.

This subject as raised in the OP needs to be broadened into discussion of the State's remedies and treatment of all serious offenders without limitation to rape.

As mentioned earlier, this article makes very interesting and illuminating statements about a modern western State approaches serious offenders.

http://tinyurl.com/vetting-sexual-offenders

That is a reflection of the prevailing political ideology. Liberalism (as in the political philosophy and not the political party) and feminism rule in Australian politics and government. Those set the tone and limit the solutions to those approved of by those ideologies.

This is a recent judicial review of parole in one Australian State and it has lessons for others, but again the solutions bounce within the rails of the liberal-feminist thinking that dominates government.

http://tinyurl.com/Judge-Callinan-review

if Governments were serious about making streets safe they would travel to Singapore and see what works much better than most places. Academics seem more intent on using their junkets to travel to places where the soft on crime approach fails and then want to copy it. Nothing will improve here while civil libertarians continue to push their mantras and dogmas which are distant from reality. Very very very few sex offenders are rehabilitated and many of them boast in prison as to their crimes (or exploits in their own eyes).

Australia is where violent OMG thugs who peddle amphetamines

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/mongols-bikies-scope-out-gold-coast-for-new-club-20130930-2uooz.html

are routinely defended by civil libertarians and the Left.

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/defending-the-rights-of-bikers-to-bash-steal-kill/

Chris Gaff it was my sad thing to have twice had to live too close to this crime.
Both times it was A Cop more than one the second time, that mothered me out of it.
I however agree, not having ago at a respected poster STG but yes the words are said as a throw away.
Those not making the threat are the ones to watch.
Both a close cousin and a male played roles in my past hatred of such events, the latter an offender.
I had to confront that more than the first, and never forgave or forgot.
I rather think bloke you do not put the best light on our police with some comments.
Not all are old school the changes in the past few years have been good.
You more than most will know most rapes are hate crimes read the transcript of past mass rape see the hatred thrown at the victims.

Dear Belly,

I agree with you.

Rape is a terrifying, brutal, and sometimes life-threatening
crime, one that often leaves deep, long-term psychological
scars. It is a crime of violence, not of passion. It is a
ritual of power and humiliation. If the victim reports
the attack to the police, the emotional trauma may be
re-experienced months or years later in a courtroom, where
the intimate details of the rape are dissected before an
audience of strangers and typically, defense lawyers try to
shift the burden of guilt from the accused to the victim.

In the case of Robert Fardon, a serial rapist, it will be
interesting to see what effect if any, testimonies,
legal objections, and public outcry have on the end result.

Belly,

Referring to your last sentence, you can be sure that the sociopathy that led to those gang rapes would be generalised. That is, these are violent offenders who would commit other serious crimes directed against people as well.

The rather obvious proactive treatment -if it is the gang crimes I think you are referring to- is in improving immigration policy and decisions. But there again, the political values, beliefs and ideologies that are evidenced through the prevailing political correctness, hold sway. To be blunt, the policies and decisions that will work as preventions, are simply not available as options.

If it helps you to understand, the LNP is also affected by the same liberal-feminist thinking. It is systemic, pervading all areas of life.

Men call themselves "feminists" in the hope of getting
a more intelligent root. (Kathy Lette).

'Men call themselves "feminists" in the hope of getting
a more intelligent root. (Kathy Lette). '

u forgot Foxy, the last lot of emily's listers exposed that myth.

Dear runner,

You need to get out more.

cont'd...

Dear runner,

Perhaps this joke will explain why you need to get
out more:

4 Catholic men and a Catholic woman were having coffee
after Mass. The first Catholic Man tells his friends,
"My son is a priest,
when he walks into a room everyone calls him,
'Father' ."

The second Catholic man states, "That's nothing. My son is
a bishop, when he walks into a room, everyone calls him,
"Your Grace."

The third Catholic man smiles and says, "My son is a cardinal,
when he walks into a room everyone calls him,
"Your Emminence."

Finally, the fourth Catholic man sighs deeply and tells them,
"My son is a Pope, and everyone calls him,
"Your Holiness."

The men turn around and look at the Catholic woman and ask,
"Well, what about you?"

She calmly replies, "I have a dughter, slim, tall,
38 Double D breasts, 24 inch waist, and 34 inch hips,
when she walks into a room people say,
"Oh My God."

Foxy,

You say that runner should get out more.

However you have been repeating the very same (crude) quote - which runner has corrected you on - for many years on OLO, and since 2007 from a quick check.

What about challenging some of those very dated world views you treasure so much? They were most likely wrong at the time, as appears to be your quote, but you remain in your rut, regardless.

You should get out of that rut and get out more, maybe?

Dear OTB,

I'm somewhat surprised that you're taking the
banter between runner and myself so seriously.
Imagine if you had realised that I
was being facetious. ;-)

As for my outdated views?

This from a man who thinks himself sensitive
(simply because he's easily put out). A man
who calls females "Old Tin Fruit," and has memory
lapses regarding the former PM's surname, and
blames whatever he can on "Feminism," or
"Progressives." A man who talks a lot
(but makes no progress). A man who thinks he
knows it all.

Ah well ...
Boys will be boys and so will a lot of older men.

I've been pondering Suseonlines earlier inflammatory comments.

My perceptions (subjective opinions I know)
- Overall I suspect that men would be harder on genuine rapists than a lot of women when it comes to sentencing. Not sure if the gender of the victim makes a lot of difference, if it does it probably flows to a greater protective attitude to women than men.
- I think the other side of the coin is that the louder voices for reducing the burden of proof in regard to sex crimes comes from women. Men are less inclined to accept an innocent man being convicted based on unproven accusations than a lot of women. Especially so where the accuser may have a personal stake in hurting the man.

R0bert

Ponder all you like RObert.
You and Onthebiartch must be bosom buddies in the way you think.

I wonder how soon that male taxi driver who raped several young drunk male customers will get out on parole?

Even now, many women who have been raped are made out to be sluts who asked for it by being drunk and dressed provocatively.
I doubt all those drunk young men were asked the same questions.

It isn't so long ago that rape within marriage was not a crime, as the married woman was expected to be available to her man whenever he wanted, and it was considered no one else's business.

So don't go on about the poor old males in society and what a hard time they get, because the women are finally standing up for themselves.
And they are no where near finished...

We still have a long way to go before rape is taken as seriously as it should be, and until that time, the laws will allow rapists out of jail to rape again.

What continues to intrude is some old dross representative of the flakey, fringe dwelling radical feminists of the Eighties and before. Some remain locked in a time warp.

As I pointed out earlier to the discomfiture of a now irritated poster, she has maintained her original views against all odds over the years and even recounts the same quotes and insults. Most people would be disconcerted to say the least if they were to be made aware they were living in a rut, and provided with the evidence to prove it.

Now I guess some might be offended by the observation that some play the same role, same scene over and over for years on OLO, and doubtless do the same in their private lives, because behaviour tends to generalise. Ye gods, lets move on!

Maybe they cannot and will not move on because they get their adrenaline from arguing and confirming their own opinions.

I posted a couple of relevant articles to stimulate some new thinking. But no, the bots repeat the same old, same old, regardless.

It is funny but it is also tragic to see rituals repeated over and over.

My 2c worth and cheap at the price.

Suseonline, "We still have a long way to go before rape is taken as seriously as it should be, and until that time, the laws will allow rapists out of jail to rape again"

That is as insulting to women as it is to men, and it is absolute rot!

You are cheap alright OTB...

As for the rubbish you just spouted, any bloke who rants and raves about everything in their lives being affected by 'feminists' must be throw backs from the 60's, never mind the 80's.

Still wearing the flares and the peace-sign shirts old boy?

Dear Suse,

In rape as in other aspects of human behaviour, the
conduct of the individual is influenced by the norms
of the surrounding society.

You've brought up some valid points.
In our modern society the sexual
relations of the sexes is marked one major cultural
feature relevant to rape: the tendency by
some men to view women as actual
or potential sexual property - that is, as sex objects.

A classic example of this tendency is the barrage of
whistles, catcalls, and obscene suggestions that often
assails a young woman walking past a group of male
construction workers. Since the likelihood that a woman
will respond favourably to this kind of attention is
approximately zero, the behaviour clearly serves some
other purposes. What it actually does is to allow
these men to bolster their own egos, to demonstrate their
"masculinity" to their peers, and to reassert the view
that the role of women is to gratify men. The woman's
feelings here are not at issue.

Then we have -defense lawyers who try to shift
the burden of guilt from the
accused to the victim. They may try to show that the
woman is "loose," implying that if she has consented to any
man before, she must have been willing on this occassion
also. Or, utilising the myth that women somehow enjoy
being raped, they may claim that the victim consciously
or subconsciously encouraged the assault. They may even
argue that she was provocatively dressed and was therefore
at fault - another example of the way in which responsibility
for the control of male advances is shifted to the female.

Such a line of defense is unique to the crime of rape -
a well-dressed man stepping from an expensive limo would
never be accused of thereby tempting someone to mug him.
Even this aspect of the act and its aftermath can be fully
understood only in terms of the overall patterns of
sexual inter-action in the society.

This is a complex issue and worthy of serious discussion.

Yes, that is exactly how it is Foxy, but you explain it so much better.

I didn't think I would ever lower myself to address OTB again, but I do feel strongly about this subject and get angry at some mindless morons on this forum.

I don't want to hear about the relatively few women who make up rape allegations, when the bulk of rapes against women are never even reported because of what they would go through during the trials, and the number of convictions are too low.

Do we have to wait until we have a 'serial rapist' before something is done?

It is a disgrace that women have to prove their innocence of the 'crime' of having ever had sex before in their lives prior to the rape, but that any previous sex crimes of the rapist are not allowed?

The laws need to change.

Now Suze, let's not get carried away with thoughts that accusation should be sufficient to condemn. Rape is an horrendous crime, and in my view treated far too leniently, and second only to murder (by a small margin); but to be incorrectly convicted of either charge would also be horrific - creating another form of severely traumatized victim.

It must be sorely hard on any rape victim (and perhaps particularly so for a female rape victim) to have to prove not only the crime and their own innocence of any 'provocation' or complicity, but also to be able to quite positively identify the actual perpetrator, by, in part at least, having to recount in detail the circumstances of the incident. (And I mean no demeaning of the crime by use of the term 'incident'.) However, the law must be just, or anyone can too easily become an unintended victim. I wish there were 100% reliable 'truth drugs' and/or lie detection mechanisms which could be utilised to streamline our legal system and reduce the onus and added burden on victims (and to 'speak' for murder victims), but unfortunately we only have 'trial', with all that this entails.

My assessment, and one reflected by many of the male posters on this thread, is that any decent man would consider rape to be totally outrageous and warranting the harshest of penalties. However, there are unfortunately (or actually disgustingly) still some men (and possibly women) who enjoy dog fights or the infliction of pain on any innocent, animal or human, and those who perpetrate 'date rape' - which appears far too common (and perhaps considered 'sport' by such demented deviants).
Would we could be easily rid of all 'vermin', but all we can really do is to be vigilant and endeavour to root out evil wherever it may be found by the best means at our disposal. A way to go? Yes. But undue haste may beget undue consequences.

Foxy, good on you.

OTB, I can't figure you out. Take a chill pill please.

Glad others find OTB so.
I actually know a still serving police officer.
A man of true kindness understanding and feeling, he told me about the offenders in two well know rape cases, their crime was a hate crime.
Last night news program gave an insight in to a victim and offender, that, clearly was a hate crime.
Those hate crimes against women shout a hate that is stunning.
Even I in posting this line and what follows feel I should not compare Catholic Child rape with this threads intended paths.
Why would I or most of us think like that?
Not a lessor crime maybe however in my question, to myself and you, I uncover a smelly and dirty truth.
Even normal people separate the crime of rape and find , WRONGLY some a lessor crime than others.
All rape, all release of dangerous criminals who offend or are likely to, is a crime against humanity.

Thanks Saltpetre and Belly. You are both right of course.
I am probably too over sensitive on the subject, having known some rape victims personally.
Of course it is dreadful to be suspected of a crime you didn't commit, such as rape.
It is one reason why I do not support the death penalty...in the case of wrongful conviction.

However, what upsets me is when we are discussing awful crimes such as rape, and some posters insist on carrying on about the few women who nastily do try to wrongly convict a man for rape.

It suggests to me that we still have a culture where we blame the victims .
And no crime is more notorious for trying to blame the victim than the crime of rape...

Dear Suse,

Beautifully argued.

The tender, romantic, and passionate intimacies of men
and women are among the supreme human emotional
experiences. Perhaps no other subject is so universally
celebrated and even idealised in literature, art, and
daily life. But the relationships of the sexes can have
a darker side, one that may involve extremes of
exploitation and violence.

There are some people who still regard rape
as an expression of unrestrained, impulsive sexual
desire. However, rape is a crime of violence,
not of passion. It is a ritual of power and humiliation
which, is regarded by most of us as intolerable. Therefore
as posters have stated in this discussion - we should stay
alert and let our law makers know what behavior
is not acceptable and will not be tolerated in our society.

Hopefully in the case of the serial rapist, Robert Fardon,
the judge's decision will be swayed by the testimonies of the
victims, and the public outcry that has arisen.

I am grateful to posters such as yourself, Saltpetre, Belly,
RObert, and others - who continue to argue at a mature,
reasoned, intelligent level.

Suseonline, "However, what upsets me is when we are discussing awful crimes such as rape, and some posters insist on carrying on about the few women who nastily do try to wrongly convict a man for rape"

What about you provide evidence for that allegation? List the posts that do that.

What is noteworthy about this thread is the inflammatory and obviously ridiculous statement made by you, to which others quite rightly lodged an objection.

<If this rapist was raping men, he would never get out of jail?
Posted by Suseonline, Tuesday, 1 October 2013 8:33:46 AM

Unabashed, you continued in a similar vein.

Add to that Foxy's comment,

<Men call themselves "feminists" in the hope of getting
a more intelligent root. (Kathy Lette)>
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 3 October 2013 3:43:59 PM

Now you both have the gall to play victim. LOL

Dear OTB,

I now understand why you chose the name
"On The Beach."
It should have been blatantly obvious from
your posts.
"No one's home!"

As I told you once before -
What ever it is that's eating you
must be suffering terribly.

Get help.

Foxy,

That is you modelling how to 'argue at a mature, reasoned, intelligent level'?

Perhaps some lack of insight there. LOL

The subject is about one of mans most evil crimes.
I have from time to time named it a hate crime.
Like an ice berg floating more beneath the surface than above other things emerge.
OTB seemingly less concerned than most, seems to want to insult women and that is a question only he can answer, why?
Maybe some self confedence is not truly earned

No OTB - I am merely responding to you
at your level. There's no lack of insight on
my part. There's a lack of perception on yours.

>The tender, romantic, and passionate intimacies of men
and women are among the supreme human emotional
experiences. Perhaps no other subject is so universally
celebrated and even idealised in literature, art, and
daily life.<
>..but there is a dark(er) side...<

A beautiful summation, Foxy.

Love is grand, and one may be tempted to feel sympathy for those who not merely don't but actually can't experience it, can't experience the wonder of really profound intimacy - or even genuine affection. However, as a Google search will quickly reveal, there are animals which cannot be tamed, no matter how hard anyone tries, and, in my view, all serial (and some once only) rapists (and murderers) fall squarely into this 'untameable' categorisation - as 'never to be trusted'.

Someone on this thread (and I can't recall the nomme, and am too lazy to search for it) has expressed deep sympathy for the plight of the rapist, suggesting that measures should be taken to induce their enlightenment to the grandeur of living a virtuous life and overcoming 'dark' impulses. However, some animals, and some humans, remain incorrigible, and will unfortunately remain ever so.

Certainly, effort ought be made to 'rehabilitate' any and all offenders, and perhaps 'caging' is not the most conducive setting for such 'treatments', but caging (in restricted company or possibly in isolation) is all one can do with a raging beast if one is to protect others from a 'real and present danger'.
Rehabilitate as hard as you can with those who may truly benefit, and so become worthwhile citizens, but one shouldn't waste time and effort on the 'incorrigible'.

Many serial felons (including sociopaths and psychopaths) appear to be very cunning, appearing quite capable of fooling psychiatrists, psychologists, prison staff and parole boards, and possibly even the police. Other severely handicapped mental patients are locked away, with treatment, solace and medication, though they may present no threat to themselves or others. So, why anyone would want to afford any greater leniency (or sympathy) to proven, hazardous 'vermin' is totally beyond me.

The price of freedom - is eternal vigilance.

Dear Saltpetre,

Thank You for that.

American lawyer David Springer, speaking as a
lawyer stated:

"At all times, vigilance is the price of liberty.
We must remain vigilant because while it might be
us today, it will be some other group down the road
20 years from now. The measure of our society over
history is fidelity to our principles. We must
remind our government and our people to remain
faithful to those principles or otherwise our
society like so many in the past will be swept on the
ash heap of history."

It is interesting that the recommendations of the recent Callinan review in Victoria has been ignored in this thread. Yet it could be the model for other jurisdictions,

<Under Mr Callinan's proposed changes, offenders who have committed intentional crimes of violence which could result in personal injury requiring treatment, or serious sexual crimes, will be find it harder to get parole than other prisoners.

Their applications for parole would be considered by a panel headed by a judge or a retired judge of the County or Supreme Courts which must also contain a psychiatrist and a community member.

Only if this panel is unanimous will the prisoner be considered for parole.

But before the prisoner can be released Mr Callinan recommends that the decision to free the criminal will need to be confirmed by a review panel which can refuse or vary the order.

These offenders will only be granted parole if they can satisfy the parole board that "taking as paramount the safety and protection of the community, to a very high degree of probability that the risk of offending is negligible''.

Mr Callinan has called for offenders who burgle homes to be added to this category of serious criminal because the law "has always regarded" these offences "as having a special tendency to violence by reason of the alarmed response to an intruder by a householder">

[link given previously]

Belly, "OTB seemingly less concerned than most, seems to want to insult women"

What about you now go through my comments in this thread and show specifically where I have in any way discounted the crime of rape?

Like Foxy you are rather free with the hit and run, but you wear a high belt where you yourself are concerned, and are very bent out of shape by any return of service.

Dear OTB,

No. Unlike you the rest of us do not
hit and run but merely point out to you
when you do so consistently in terms that
you would understand.

As for not responding to your discussions.
You reap what you sow old chap.
When you consistently attack - people
don't bother to either read your posts any
more, or take you seriously.

If you want us to change our opinion of you
you can always improve. Although I suspect
that this isn't going to happen any time soon.
You must get some kind of peverse pleasure
from your continued behaviour otherwise you
would at least make an attempt at changing it.

cont'd ...

Dear OTB,

I suspect that you actually enjoy picking on me.

Care to call a truce, and start again?
I'm game if you are.

No Foxy, I am convinced it is not just you OTB picks on.
He seems to have a problem with women in general.

I stand by my statement that if it was men getting regularly raped by a serial rapist, that rapist wouldn't be getting early parole.
By saying this, I am not suggesting it is only male judges who grant parole, because I know that's not true.

What I am saying is that it seems like the violence against women in rape crimes somehow hasn't been taken as seriously as other violent crimes over human history.
Of course it has been taken more seriously over the past 20 years or so, but still not enough.
I don't care who doesn't like my opinion...

@ Foxy, Friday, 4 October 2013 7:23:07 PM

But of course, it would be churlish of me to refuse.

Hasbeen says we have all forgotten his OP. We could return to that.

Suze,

>I stand by my statement that if it was men getting regularly raped by a serial rapist, that rapist wouldn't be getting early parole.<

Where in heavens would you get that idea (or 'conviction') from?
I don't believe anyone (male or female) could realistically consider male on male rape to be more horrendous, or even equally horrendous, to the rape of a female - unless such male on male rape be particularly vicious, but even then I have my doubts.
Are we so different (men and women), as to so disagree on such as this?
Then again, Suze, would you consider female on female rape to be less onerous an offence than male on female rape or male on male rape?

I would hope we all 'get' that the rape of a female is brutal and quite unforgivable - though perhaps our courts do not properly reflect this. Perhaps rape cases should only be heard by an appropriately astute female judge?

My differentiation of the male rape of a female is because it denotes a particular kind of savagery; because we have all had a mother; and because of the deep and lingering consequences of such a 'violation'.
Being a man myself, if I were to be raped by a man, or men, I would be seriously pee-ed off, but I wouldn't rate my 'violation' in the same terms as a female rape victim. Others may disagree, but that is my 'sensing'.

In essence, I can scarcely think of a more vicious relatively common offence than the rape of a woman - though some may laugh at such an appraisal.
However, that rape is not taken seriously enough, is not afforded the levels of punishment it truly deserves - and that some probably think date-rape just a bit of a 'lark' - leaves me with a deep disdain for the quality of our courts and an unsettling questioning of the true calibre of our broader society's morality and moral judgement.

Folks,
The good news is that Robert Fardon has been returned to prison compliments of the Appeals Court.
Another win for the LNP

Dear Suse,

In rape as in other aspects of human behaviour,
the conduct of the individual is influenced by the
norms of the sourrounding society.

In some cultures rape is virtually unknown, while
in others it is relatively common. In Western societie
the social relations of the sexes are marked by two
cultural features relevant to the case of rape:
inequality between women and men, and a tendency for
some men to view women as actual or potential sexual
property - that is, as sex symbols. Sexual harrassment
in the workplace is now illegal and corporate and
other employers are held responsible for their
employees' conduct. Our society is evolving - and with
this hopefully the incidence of rape will decrease.

Dear OTB,

I look forward to many positive inter-actions with you.

Dear Saltpetre,

Your comments are always much appreciated.

Dear Chris,

Good news indeed.
Thanks for the information.

Foxy ' Dear OTB, I look forward to many positive inter-actions with you."

Lol!
Foxy, you are a better woman than I :)

Actually I think that Fardon being released, then put back in prison is dreadful. Talk about torture.

He should not have been released a few rapes back, but releasing him one day & re-arresting him the next highlights all that is bad with the system.

Sensible people want him locked up permanently, but the bleeding hearts want him out.

Can you imaging what it would be like to be told you are out, then be locked up again the next day? Sure he deserves to be locked up permanently, but why can't we get our act together before the fact, make a decision, & then stick with it for gods sake? This Ringa Ringa Roses stuff should be in play school, not our courts.

Dear Suse,

You've paid me such a compliment as to tell me
that I'm "a better woman than you."

However, I've simply realised that I can't keep
doing what I've been doing, and expect different
results.

Foxy, a leopard never changes his spots.
Shades of good ol' boy Antiseptic I'm thinking?

Folks
I think it is time to shut this discussion down
People send to get way off the path and personalize things to the detriment of the argument.
The point here is whether or not there is any justification for the release of sex (rapist) offenders back into the community.
The answer is obviously no but since there is limited accommodation in prisons, even less for the protection of these offenders and the costs are enormous the authorities have to find alternate solutions.
We say no and they say yes. They have the power we do not.
There is one solution though its called community justice vigilantes.
You just saw it in operation in New Guinea after the trail massacre.

Dear Suse,

Have you not read Antiseptic's recent contributions
to this Forum? He's not the poster of old and I
suspect we didn't really get to know him earlier.
He's a man full of surprises. Nice ones.

Besides, I can only be responsible
for my own behaviour. Not for those of others.
And I am doing what I feel is the correct thing to do.
As I said earlier - I can't keep behaving as I have
done to date, and expect different results.

Criminologists say that the parole system works and there are compelling reasons to keep it.

Mistakes are made. Some can be corrected through policy and procedural change, or reducing human error. Criminals are clever in hoodwinking even their lawyers though and mistakes are always possible.

Justice Callinan's report shows the way ahead. Some might still disagree with his assessment of the problems and causes and some here want sex crimes against women to be a special category and a different, reduced standard of proof to be applied, even where the same crimes may be committed against men However, there will never be a perfect solution, especially where the legal system reflects our society's values. I am not sure though that other legal systems such as (say) France's, produce any better results.

Since discussion of Callinan's report is not of interest to posters, maybe instead some might have some thoughts on the the growing (Western) cultural belief that the State can somehow remove all risk and should be attempting to do so. Specifically that risk identification and treatment -hopefully complete removal(!)- is a function of government. Speaking for myself I see it as foolish, intrusive and even dangerous. It is seen for instance in demands for the State to treat the risk of obesity, as well as in some of the suggested extreme 'solutions' to sex crimes.

For the lazy-minded who stereotype, no I am not under-rating the seriousness of rape crimes or other serious offenses in saying that. I do believe that Callinan has a point in suggesting that serial offenders who commit serious crimes should be treated differently by the parole system.

Dear OTB,

In May 2013 the Victorian Government commissioned former
High Court Justice Ian Callinan to carry out a review
of the Victorian Parole Board. The report on the Victorian
Parole Board was commissioned after Adrian Bayley was
convicted of murdering Jill Meagher while on parole.

Justice Callinan was scathing in his report and found that
the Board released violent criminals into the community
far too easily. The Board of course reacted and hit back
against the Report. Their justification of an "intolerably
heavy" workload - is simply not good enough.

I'm with Justice Callinan on this one. I think he's extremely
fair in his assessment. He knows of what he speaks. And the
Victorian Government should pay attention to his advice.
Breaking parole should be an offence in itself and police
should be given greater powers. As Justice Callinan states.
"Potentially dangerous parolees
should only be granted parole via application if they satisfy
the Board to a very high degree of probability that the risk
of offending is negligible."

Justice Callinan's recommendation of a full time chair in
the form of a recently retired judge on the Board is also
a good one.

It's obvious from the Report that there should be a full
review of the entire parole system. This may prevent future
tragedy's like Jill Meagher from happening again.

Thanks OTB, I too read Callinan's report (from your earlier link I think), and it is illuminating; and I am sure it has been of interest to us, though of late we have gotten rather off-track and have inadvertently failed to address your earlier, and worthwhile, references to his findings. Sorry about that lapse.

I also think his recommendations for the treatment of serial offenders to be different to that of other, less egregious offenders (and for the composition of parole boards and the implementation of a 'review process') are totally valid and justified - as I find are all of his findings and recommendations.
It is to be hoped that his findings will be fully implemented, and also may have related impact on our court proceedings and sentencing provisions in the case of all serial offenders - basically to 'toughen up' on those who will ever represent a real and unacceptable danger to society at large.

I have to agree with you that even the toughest and most stringent of 'prevention' measures can never prevent all crime, and that in pursuit of all-encompassing preventions measures, such as stop and search, runaway phone/internet/media tapping, etc, may unreasonably compromise civil liberties and could end up verging on a 'police state'. However, some easing of what may be regarded as 'reasonable cause' would appear worthwhile.

I also agree that sex crimes can Not have any special dispensation regarding provision of evidential 'proof' (save only that some proceedings ought be held 'in camera', and some perhaps with the alleged victim only participating or monitoring via video link) - even though this means victims will still continue to suffer many stresses from the court process.
Maybe one day mandatory and reliable 'truth serum' and lie-detection measures could almost entirely obviate trial by jury?

No, Chris, vigilantes are not an acceptable answer in any circumstance.
Viz Zimmerman - who in my view was guilty at least of manslaughter, if not 2nd degree murder.
(US courts are a circus and almost a farce - if you have the money for top-draw representation, or if the case is of high public interest.)
Also, US gun laws definitely need to be strengthened. Ordinary citizens don't need semi-automatic weapons, and only screened applicants should be able to obtain a licence to 'bear arms' - and with strenuous restrictions on handgun licensing and ownership.
Their (US) 'libertarian' approach to gun ownership is directly complicit in many of their social problems resulting in firearms homicide - IMHO - and ought be overhauled even if the 'majority' squeals 'like a stuck pig'.
The majority (and even the minority) view is not always the 'right' view.

Saltpetre,
You obviously have a limited view of what democracy means.
Apart from having a free shot at the ballot box it also means that any member of that democracy has the right to take any action, walk any path or think any way they want to just so long as they also accept the consequences of their actions.
Thus blowing some thief's head off as he tries to rob you is a legitimate act under any democracy and if the consequence of that is a medal or prison then that is the democracies verdict of the behavior involved.
Australia does not operate as a democracy. It functions under a Westminster system of government where there are no written laws telling the people what they CAN do. The only laws tell the people what they CANNOT do.

We duck and dive from the threads subject to many others
And in truth we have done so in many thread just like this over the years.
Some truly good threads showing concerns about our very system of justice and how it is administered.
Over and again balanced thoughtful posters have said they do not trust or at least support our law givers.
This threads author put a good case for not letting its subject out of prison.
Then complained about just that, keeping him locked up.
If we could vote for what system we wanted in this country, take it out of the hands of PC blindness.
And the cash register hands of that part of the system that is more concerned about the costs than public safety, we would end most of our concerns.

Yesterday I watched *underbelly the golden mile in full*.
For us in NSW it was remembering just how bad we had become in those not too distant days.
It if you watched and too remembered the Royal Commission, did not uncover many honest police in Kings Cross.
For me current events and past focused my mind on a belief in truth many have.
This thread reminded me of the scales of justice, quite blind.
Yesterdays re living our past? maybe the three unwise monkeys best represent law in our country,s law givers and makers.
Not wise in any way but blind deaf, and dumb.

Belly,
As one of those Kings Cross coppers, and they were really out of Darlinghurst, I will answer your latest "when I have referred to my notes if I may your honor"
The RC was as bent as we were mate and all it did was to hurry up our pensions. Sure a couple of prats were nailed and boxed up but they were expendable.
It took some trumped up charges subsequent to the RC to get my partner and they missed me but we still both have Commissioners Medals for the Lamfranchi/Sally-Anne effort.
Royal Commissions are side shows for the public.
Look at this one into the Sex and kids thing. It has no powers to investigate offenses against individuals ( who committed the crimes) and will swing on till most of them are dead.

Chris on giving evidence on behalf of the police, the defendants breif tried to stop me reading from my diary/notes.
Yes OK the RC would have been bent in fact it runs on bent.
But do you, now come on, ever think taking big cash bribes is OK?
My whispered words about my interface with NSW ICAC was them, trying to pressure me, to give evidence against a theiving police station!
The bent Cops put more pressure than ICAC did so 23 workers kept their mouths shut.
Tonights news will show a prisoner who murdered a man.
He served 6 plus a bit years.
Then was released, on parole.
He has broken his parole and is on the run.
Police warn he is dangerous, we do live in a world of madness.

Belly,
There is no way they could have stopped you using your diaries to refresh you mind.
That is what we had diaries for.
I and my partners including Rogerson never took a bribe. We may have taken ill gotten gains off the crims but that would have disappeared from the property rooms anyway. If there was cash laying around it went into the skyrocket but that was the nature of the beast.
The big cash bribes were reserved for the top brass and Ministers.
I posted elsewhere my experiences with Rand's bag-man, Malcolm Johns. To this day I wouldn't take a bribe to hide a crime and I would lie in court to lock the bludger up if I believed he was guilty. We knew, it was part of the job

Belly, we can pretend to be anyone we want on this site.
I wouldn't believe everything some people say...

Yes Suseonline I understand that, in fact a different poster made claim he was then was not a Cop.
Chris I know of the Christmas gift runs and the meals not paid for.
In the words of a former Chief Inspector of Police.
*It is the older Cops that are bent*
Yet to be honest it is not just the police, construction is as bent as a rusty nail thousands changing hands to ensure contracts are won.
Machines never seen on site are paid for 12 hours work everyday and phantom workers the same.
Note recent headlines.

Rapists, serial and otherwise, might be deterred if potential victims were able to protect themselves.

Is Mise
My sentiments exactly. Allow handgun ownership and with the right training and accreditation there would definitely be less violent attack crime.

Thankfully most would not agree with you two.
In your case Chris most of your former work mates the likely first victims of such a silly thing.
Right now domestic violence see bashing that would become shootings if guns became legal.
A police man on his own doing RBT could be shot because some one had a gun to do it.

Belly,

What have you done that you have such fear of your fellow man? Be deadly afraid for they also have knives, blunt objects and other means to redress whatever wrongs you have done to them. Lucky for you that would exclude the law-abiding citizens you have offended and wronged.

The Howard inspired gun control regulations introduced a host of new taxes and bureaucracy for licensed, law-abiding clay pigeon shooters and farmers, but did nothing to prevent even deter those who are responsible for the gun crime and criminal violence in Australia, which are usually drug traffickers like the OMGs.

But like so many who regard themselves as leftie Progressives', you would be defending the 'rights' of OMGs wouldn't you? You reserve your prejudice and bile for the respectable, law-abiding people, farmers, sportsmen, professionals who have the excellent character, references and training to obtain a licence.

<Hallam shooting, strong security as charged bikies front court>
http://tinyurl.com/bikies-bombs-and-guns

<Brisbane bikie gangs using standover tactics to extort tens of thousands from small business, tradies and gym junkies>
http://tinyurl.com/xriminal-extortion

<Gold Coast bikies claiming the dole could soon face fraud charges as crackdown steps up>
http://tinyurl.com/dole-claiming-bikies

ChrisgaffeIs
"mise My sentiments exactly. Allow handgun ownership and with the right training and accreditation there would definitely be less violent attack crime."

Are you guys serious?
Allow handgun ownership like in the US, where there are more deaths by gunshot than in Australia by far, and also more crime!
How do you figure we would be safer than that 'shoot-em-up' society?
Lol.

Suseonline,

Like Belly, you should be so lucky to have neighbours with firearms licences.

Not for the protection, because the law precludes that, but for the assurance tat at least they are proved to be responsible stable citizens of excellent character.

I don't ask for much and it has nothing to do with guns: just the return of the citizen's right to defend him/herself and loved ones. That right was taken away from us to be replaced with a reversal of the onus of proof: it is now the victim of the attack, the homeowner who was invaded, who is required to prove that s/he was actually in fear of injury and that s/he only used the exact force or less to restrain or deter the offender.

Citizens of NSW have had that right returned to them, but alas not so for those living in other States.

NSW,
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/nswbills.nsf/0/0b19764c0978b859ca256b12001953ad/$FILE/b01-126-p03.pdf

Now I have put that to you and others in previous threads where you went off as you have just done, but have never been give the courtesy of a polite and relevant reply.

Fortunately OTB a bow is still legal, just a cross bow is treated as a fire arm.

I still have a gun licence to defend my stock from marauding wild dogs, but realise in a home invasion I would be better off using it on myself, the way todays laws are.

However I also have a no longer used 70Lb steel hunting bow. Steel & no longer valued, I can keep it strung. As a home invader, I would certainly hate to be facing that in the hands of an old bloke, who's fingers tire very quickly holding that weight.

Fortunately near the end of a dead end country road, where everyone is on acreage, with a big dog or two, & probably a rifle for stock protection, no professional burglar would be silly enough to come around here, & the armatures don't get this far from the city, even on holidays.

Did I mention guns, rifles or pistols?

I merely said " Rapists, serial and otherwise, might be deterred if potential victims were able to protect themselves".

As it stands in Australia the potential victim is not allowed to possess anything for the purpose of self defence.

To carry a sharpened pencil or a cheap ball point pen for defence is a criminal offence.

In Australia violent criminals must be given the full protection of the law at all times particularly whilst following their chosen line of work.

Belly,
I cannot recall one single criminal or potential terrorist in Australia actually handing in their guns.
I wonder why.
Mise,
carry a sharpened pencil or a cheap ball point pen [and make the statement that it is] for [self] defense is definitely a criminal offense.

Chris I have no doubt you are an ex cop.
I could name drop mates in uniform but will not.
You just must agree you like me,are not the standard issue, I am often in my own paddock.
But without reserve my view is your wish to let us carry guns is insane.
And I bet few cops would agree with you.
A short time in my miss spent youth I was the front for two SP shops, you know the deal get pinched boss pays and the police got the cash.
1961 to 1963.
Played football with many and had a beer or two after with them.
Not too many cops, thankfully, would want to confront a grogged up wife basher with gun in hand.

When a woman is raped why are the police not there to protect her; for that matter when anyone is bashed and/or robbed why aren't the police on hand to protect them?

I have watched a couple of these sensationalist "COP" shows on TV currently.

The first thing I noticed is the difficulty of policing, where those involved do not speak English. This is becoming a problem in Oz today.

The second thing I noticed was the number of patrol cars that turn up in backup to the first cop involved in a "domestic" or a traffic stop, that turns nasty.

Comparing this to anywhere here but the Gold Coast, with its blitz on bikes, is unbelievable. Even without the bikie blitz drawing most of our cops away, we would be lucky to have one patrol car within 25 kilometers of here most nights. That is of course except for the occasional profit making booze bus blitz, on the main road.

God had better come & help us if ever there is any big trouble around here, because you won't find a cop to do it, not after office hours anyway.

Around NSW in country areas it takes a while for the police to arrive because the patrol car might be miles away or there is no one on duty, so the Controller (in the nearest city) phones the local policeman on call and after he gets dressed in his uniform he then goes to the Station to get his pistol and other gear out of safe storage; then he's on his way.
Now the emergency may be just a street away or miles out in the bush.

If it involves violence or a threat to life?

Well as tis said "When seconds count the police are only minutes away".

Belly, "But without reserve my view is your wish to let us carry guns is insane. And I bet few cops would agree with you"

Since when did any democracy allow the police to recommend, make, interpret and enforce laws? But wait a bit, isn't that what they are allowed to do with firearms?

Since when were the names, addresses and other personal particulars of citizens with no criminal record or criminal intent kept on computers by police and subjected to random visits and inspections in their own homes? But wait a bit, all who comply voluntarily with firearms laws, meet the character and other checks, are certified as properly trained and lawfully hold licences are.

It is a very sad indictment of the leftie 'Progressives', the Greens with their lunatic Trotskyists and the forever whining civil libertarians among defence lawyers (who likely swing from the guvvy teat anyhow) that they are all up in arms about 'infringements' of the 'rights' of criminals - the OMGs for instance - but they do not give a fig about the rights of law-abiding citizens who lawfully hold firearms licences.

Talking about the ambulance and coroner's van arriving at a crime scene before police, I have it on good authority that some young police - take that as under 40 - are actually afraid of their own pistols, could not be relied upon to hit an object the size of Ford Transit van from ten paces and are opposed to using their sidearm anyhow.

Added to that their reluctance to grapple with offenders and you need several squad cars to show up before there is a constable the offending violent thug can grudgingly recognise as possibly injurious to his own health if he monsters police. Take as proof of that the recurring shootings of police - usually in the face(?!) - by OMG members, such as recently occurred on the Gold Coast.

Your feigned concern for the welfare of police is just that Belly, a complete fraud.

Chris with nothing but respect for your right to a different view, and the support you are gaining for your views.
I remain proudly unmoved and again claim it is madness.
I offer from the hundreds of thousands of reasons why it is mad the gun related murders in America and rest my case.

Is Mise & Belly,
There is one simple floor in the operation of policing today. The 24 hour warrant does not exist. Police work a 8x8x8 roster and when they are not on duty they have no uniform or weapon and do not have to act as a policeman unless they choose to. Most don't because there is no pay and probability;y no insurance and, for many, there is really no incentive to do so.
A word of advice if you want prompt attendance. Say you think the "Badie" has a handgun or a knife. The commissioners regs. give immediate 'all car' reaction to the situation.
Belly,
You show your age. Shop Cockatoo for SP shops. My mother ran the SP service for the Waterhouse brothers from Kirribilli to the Spit Bridge out to Lane Cove and back to Blues Point.
That was where I learned to count. 6 pence that one all up this one any 1 shilling another one if any 2 bob on the last race Welter at Randwick top-weight favorite.
I had to work out the payout trees.
Mate I run a PI and cash transfer business now and I never go out without a weapon on my belt. 9mm Glock and upping to a .5 Glock just as soon as it arrives from the states.
Guns don't kill people. People do.

From 'The Guardian'

"The key facts are:

• The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world - an average of 88 per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership - and even the number two country, Yemen, has significantly fewer - 54.8 per 100 people
• But the US does not have the worst firearm murder rate - that prize belongs to Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica. In fact, the US is number 28, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people
• Puerto Rico tops the world's table for firearms murders as a percentage of all homicides - 94.8%. It's followed by Sierra Leone in Africa and Saint Kitts and Nevis in the Caribbean"

See: < http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list >

Dear Chris,

You should amend the sentence that "guns don't kill
people. People do." to read -

"Yes, guns don't kill
people, but people WITH guns do." And that's the
whole point.

The persistent belief that, since criminals have guns,
law-abiding citizens need them for self-protection
has been around for generations. However, as we've learned
from news stories, police reports, and other sources,
gun-owning households are much more likely to suffer
fatalities from their own weapons than those of outsiders.
It's a very small percentage of all slayings in gun-owning
households that occurs for self-protection; many are from
suicides, homicides, or accidental deaths, and many
involve family members, friends, or acquaintances.

A single American city like Chicago, Houston, or Los Angeles
records more murders in a typical year than does the whole
of England, where even police do not normally carry guns.
Most other countries severely restrict private handgun
ownership, as we do in this country - thanks to John Howard
after the Port Arthur Massacre. We have laws and rules which
restrict the ownership of guns - and people are held to
account. The US does not simply because there is a belief,
deeply held by many Americans, that gun ownership is an
individual right. However, for granting this "liberty"
to the individual, American society pays a very high price
in the deviance of those who abuse it.

I am for restricting handguns ownership,
to those that can provide a darn good reason for owning a
gun - and have them pass all the necessary checks and laws before
they can do so.
Having lived in the US for close to ten years and having a
relative in the LAPD (Los Angeles Police Department) and
hearing his gun-related stories - has strengthened my concern
about handguns.

Foxy, " We have laws and rules which restrict the ownership of guns - and people are held to account"

You have no damn idea of the laws and procedures that apply in Australia, or the US for that matter and you continually flaunt it.

What "people"? How are "people held to account" any better as a result of the Howard inspired bureaucracy and additional taxes?

How does a central data repository keeping the names, addresses and intimate personal and firearms ownership details of respectable licensed citizens Australia-wide -who have been proved to be of strong character and without criminal conviction- and making it openly available to all police and on PCs in stations and in mobile units anywhere in Australia, make it any safer, deter criminals and "hold people to account"?

Exactly how do random, flying, fully uniformed police visits and home inspections of the aforementioned respectable law-abiding licensed citizens make it any safer, deter criminals and "hold people to account"?

What about the criminals? But wait a bit, they have rights don't they?

Please do me the politeness of reading my posts of,

Tuesday, 8 October 2013 7:13:24 PM

Tuesday, 8 October 2013 10:10:06 PM
and
Wednesday, 9 October 2013 1:59:06 PM

Because I would like to see some answers.

Hands up all those in favour of women not being able to protect themselves from rapists.

Hands up all those who have a solution to the problem of women being raped.

Dear OTB,

I stopped reading your post after your statement that -
I have no idea about the laws here in Australia or the
US.

Foxy,

Foxy,

You don't and you cannot fool anyone who has a smidgen of knowledge that you do.

As well, you persist in conflating the gun owners who commit crimes,

- which in the US are very predominately young blacks from slums and invariably associated with the drug trade, and

- in Australia are similarly, invariably lower socioeconomic ferals, well represented in OMGs, and strongly linked with drug trafficking,

with the respectable law-abiding citizens who have licences and can always be trusted to act legally and with respect, whether that is with firearms or in other life activities.

Your concern is gun control, ie banning firearm ownership by legitimate owners, not reducing crime. In fact you are likely soft on criminals and support criminal rights. These are proved by your total lack of concern about the fundamental citizen's rights of licensed gun owners being warped, or that citizens who defend themselves against burglary and other serious offences in their own home will have to contend with the reverse onus of proof should the offender be injured.

Quite clearly the Howard inspired gun control laws did nothing to reduce or even deter the illegal ownership and use of firearms. OMGs import their preferred menacing 'gangsta' weapons for their enforcement activities of their drug trafficking.

You of course would very much prefer to duck the rather obvious facts and questions I have posed again in this thread. So be it, yet again.

Once upon a time this country trusted me with a couple of million dollars worth of reasonably high tech weapon.

This weapon flew off an aircraft carrier, & carried rockets capable of destroying any air liner, & with a bit of luck, sinking reasonably large ships.

I was trained in the use of this & many other weapons, including ships with quite large guns. I was expected to be prepared to put my life on the line, using these weapons to defend the citizens of this country.

Today I am expected to answer to some half baked junior police constable, in some cases silly little girls you would not trust to handle a chainsaw or brush cutter, without injuring themselves, as to whether I should be trusted with a pea rifle.

Is it any surprise we now have little respect for the country or it's laws, & wonder if it is still worth defending.

In business I would take possession of a Firearms Licence as proof of good honest and stable character, which it is. If a Firearms Licence (and they are photographic with tamper proof design) were shown as proof of ID for (say) a tenancy application, in my book the holder would instantly get preference and for good reason in view of the expense of the asset being placed at his/her disposal.

Honestly, what better proof can a person tender that s/he is of good character, responsible and reliable?

So Hasbeen ,the fact that you have qualified for and retained a Firearms Licence, especially for so many years is proof you are a fine upstanding citizen who takes his responsibilities seriously and in whom trust can be placed.

Not sure just what is takeing place but my post went without reason and the wrong thread showed on my screen?
Chris last night 700 cops took part in a search for guns.
How many of them would have been shot and killed if guns became as freely available as you want them to be.
Foxy not kidding but in all truth you have time and again been exposed to sexist comments here as have other women just for having opinions that differ from a few who are overly confident in their own views, but seek to stop you having yours.

These are the people who own the illegal guns and use them in their turf wars largely over drug territory, who are protected by avowed gun control nuts like Foxy and the Greens (eg NSW Greens),

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/victorian-police-swoop-on-bikies-in-dawn-raids/story-e6frg6nf-1226736542888

The Howard inspired gun control regulations are completely and notoriously ineffective in addressing the supply, possession and (obviously) the use of illegal guns.

Simply because bikies and other drug trafficking criminals who use guns to threaten, enforce and retaliate, do not apply for firearms licences (which they would never have got even prior to Howard), they do not obtain their guns from legal, legitimate sources as licensed people do, and they do not register their guns nor any other weapons they use.

How simple is that to understand?

How complex and ridiculous are gun control nuts like Foxy and the Greens, who defend and protect OMG bikies and lay the blame for gun crime instead at the thousands of law-abiding, respectable citizens like farmers, Olympic competition shooters and the like? It is the same as blaming law-abiding respectable motorists for violent thugs using cars in the commission of the crimes. Excepting that in the second case, the thug might hold a car licence, whereas his criminal record and intent would always have prevented him from having a firearms licence and owning firearms.

Hands up all those in favour of women not being able to protect themselves from rapists.

Enough of the simple questions, Foxy has left the building.

Belly,

First, show me where I have suggested that guns become freely available? That is your lie.

I support licensing. It is the only robust control and was available before Howard.

Now you prove the Howard inspired 'gun control' is anything more than a political gimmick. You can start by telling us all how Howard's bureaucratic paper-chase and the overbearing monitoring of legal owners prevents crime.

Obviously too, criminals like the drug-dealing OMGs will brutalise and kill as many as they like, with or without guns. It is only police on the ground with the power and cooperation to investigate and bring them to heel that has any effect. Redundancy of laws, doubling, tripling or quadrupling laws does not deter anyone who sets out to break the law.

Now you can also tell us why your Labor side-kicks, the Greens and so many of the lunatic authoritarian Left are so sweet and soft on criminals and OMG bikies in particular. What is it? Is it that all rule benders have to stick together?

Belly, Sorry mate the cops were not searching for guns.
They had what is known as an "inclusive" warrant which allows them to 'fish' for evidence of indictable offenses.
They were baiting the "bikie gangs"
If these blokes wanted to shoot the cops they could at any time, and they probably will at a later date but they didn't hand in their guns.
In fact I just had a news flash that the police are updating their weapons right now to give themselves a chance against the gangs.

onthebeach,
An interesting link here which makes you thing seriously about Howard's role in the Port Arthur thing.
http://southeastasianews.org/portarthur/the_facts.html

Dear Belly,

Thanks for your concern.

However it's not something I take seriously.
You'll always find posters on public forums
who are simply testing our boundaries
and waiting for us to bite.
Best to simply not read their posts and scroll past.

We've argued the topic of gun control laws many times
on this forum. It's an emotive topic - however the
following link may be of some interest to you. It also
includes a speech at the end of it from John Howard - which
is interesting:

http://guncontrol.org.au/

Foxy,

No-one would be surprised, least of all me, by you posting a link to that disreputable site.

Tell us now, since the person or interests behind that site will not, exactly how anyone can join that 'organisation' which appears to be just a front? It refuses membership, right?

So how many members does it represent and who are they?

Where do they get their funding, who are the sponsors?

- Once again, the site refuses information. Yet there are persistent allegations that George Soros, the Hungarian born American billionaire currency dealer - the man who who currency deals nearly sent the Bank of England broke, which would have bankrupted thousands of small mums and dads account holders - secretly bankrolls that site you posted, and has actually sponsored the one or two people responsible for the site, to travel to the US for training and activism.

What is also amazing, shocking even, is that the person or persons behind the site, who do not identify themselves, offer to run courses in Australian schools! The Australian government does not give blue cards to phantoms, but obviously you and they don't care about that either.

So Foxy, what about you fill in the missing details on that site? You might want to cover any links between it, the Soros organisation and the scurrilous NSW Greens while you are at it. Trust you though to side-step every question directed at your posts and to give a link to an activist site where run by one or two gun control extremists with a phone, fax and site, but who refuse to give any particulars a bout themselves, not even their names.

chrisgaff1000,

I don't suggest there is anything beyond that evil mongrel who murdered our fellow countrymen.

However Howard and his political opponents for that matter were strongly disposed to avoid any public inquiry. The reason being that authorities knew all about the offender Bryant and for years before. He was a man with low IQ, not mad, who fostered an unreasonable, ill-informed hatred.

It may not be PC to say it, but it is a medical fact that people with marginal intelligence are easily jolted and angered by changes and events in their lives that they do expect or understand.

Regrettably in the years before Bryant, both sides of government had for differing ideological imperatives, sold off and de-funded mental health services and the infrastructure that went with it, and casting the professionals and carers to the wind. The LNP didn't believe in 'government' being involved and Labor's ideology and idealism while it was Statist, (incredibly) saw 'discrimination' in sheltered workshops and so on, and there were people like Keating who wanted to sell government facilities anyhow.

To cut to the chase, maybe Bryant might have been diverted from his course had political events been different.

to be continued..

It used to be that Gun Control Australia was two people with a 'phone and a Gestetner but it is rumoured that they now have a computer, a printer and personal mobile 'phones.

They were looking to don Integrity but it wouldn't fit.

continued..

So yes, Howard the supreme politician was quick to seize the opportunity provided to him to cobble together the populist 'solution' of 'gun control' to prevent a 'gun culture', to reassure a reeling public that the State can pass laws to abolish risk, which is absolute bulldust and he knew it. But a billion dollars wasted is well worth a win at the polls and Howard knew how to play wedge politics.

If only there had been a public review though, because so many families, carers, the community and police might have seen some revision of the rigid and very flawed policy of returning mentally impaired patients to families come hell or high water. Others here can post further on that.

However it is worth saying that many mentally impaired people are now shot by police. That is not the fault of the police or the (shooting) victim's family. It happens because there is no means for intervention and treatment anymore, the politicians sold the facilities off years ago. Same as the C'wealth rehabilitation facilities, excellent facilites sold and demolished for developers to build apartments.

One of the very sad realities of having jack-booted partisans like Foxy is that there can be no surfacing and reasonable discussion of facts and evidence. It all has to be 'her way' or the highway. Broken record replies with the procession of the same old disreputable 'independent' and unaccountable sites. What motivates the few to post the same old, same old for countless years on a site like this and impervious to any opposing argument and evidence no-one will ever know.

Gee OTB, I hope you aren't suggesting our society should have more liberal gun laws because of all the violent mental health patients out there that need shooting?

We should be overhauling the mental health system and not putting more guns out there so that poor depressed people can more easily commit suicide, or take others out with them more easily.

All the evidence I need that our gun laws are working is that we don't have the same murder by gun rates as the gun-happy Americans have.

The have their 'God given right to bear arms', but we have the right to live in a far less violent society, and I am thankful for that.

onthebeach,
Do you actually believe that Martin Bryant was the only shooter, that someone with little or no shooting skills firing from the hip was able to place single bullets into the heads of 29 people out of some 31 shots using a A4 and AR15. The public has never seen these guns and the autopsy reports have never been released.
I have used them both in combat and I can assure you they are not that reliable in the military let alone the product marketed to the public.
Sure he was there, the patsy, but he was also a patient/inmate at the Tavistock Institute in England.
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/tavistockarticlesindex04jun04.shtml
I remain skeptical at best.
Why hide or censer anything?

Suseonline, "Gee OTB, I hope you aren't suggesting our society should have more liberal gun laws because of all the violent mental health patients out there that need shooting?"

That idiotic statement so you, as was your,"If this rapist was raping men, he would never get out of jail."

The sole robust, effective control is the firearms licence. A determined offender will break any law. 'Gun control' spin and red tape won John Howard an election. Because it only applied to people who were already obeying the laws, it accomplished squat.

Since Martin Bryant has been mentioned, he did exactly what OMG bikie thugs and any other criminals do. Bryant had no Tasmanian gun licence, obtained firearms illegally and used them for illegal purposes. The 'military style' weapon he used was illegal and had been surrendered to police in a gun amnesty.

The inconvenient truth is that Howard's 'gun control' would not have stopped Martin Bryant. Nor has it stopped the drug trafficking OMG bikies from importing guns and shooting one another.

Neither Bryans nor OMG bikies have anything to do with the law-abiding, respectable members of society who have licences.

Gun control is solely aimed at making gun ownership difficult and expensive for the law-abiding, reputable citizens who are already certified by police as men and women of good character who have never committed a criminal offence and would be very unlikely to do so.

The Howard inspired gun control directed the police weapons branches and police generally away from criminals and onto good citizens, who in their thousands now have all of their personal particulars and other information recorded on police computers as 'persons of interest'; the firearms licence flashes on police screens even as they are pulled over for a routine traffic check; and they are subjected to random flying visits of uniformed police to compulsorily enter to inspect in their homes.

Further, if any firearm, part of one or even a useless empty cartridge case is stolen from a licensed person, the holder of the licence could charged with an offence.

Chris gaff 1000 I answer you because you are a balanced poster but ignore fools naming me a lie teller.
Chris you have devalued the words of a Police commissioner.
Of course I know much more than guns are the target of such raids.
And as you will know, as any intelligent poster will, legalizing guns will see many thousands more on the street.
My guess would be at least 700.000 of them.
As a result of that number wise men/women know the price will be greatly reduced and some true thugs and idiots would find a way to arm them selves.
I stand firm, I believe far more Australians would oppose such a move to make guns freely available than side with you.
*The view the victims can stop rape bashings and robbery by carrying a gun and using nit it madness*.
The gun could be taken from shaking hands and used to murder the victim.
To call an innocent man a lier based on inability to understand is weak and foolish.getting to be a long term habit for that poster.

In line with the OP's drawing attention to repeat rapists, may I suggest a read of < http://www.criticalidealism.net.au/blogfiles/deathpenalty_linx.pdf >
which deals with rape in Australia.

From the final paragraph "....point during The Grand Final : it is a statistical certainty that there are rapists who have gotten away
with it in the grandstands, and a statistical probability that at least one of them is running around on the field. And most importantly of all : Australia's rape victims for just one year would fill this
grandstand. Jill Meagher's murder was a horrible crime, but we're fooling ourselves if we think of it as an isolated incident. Why is her death alone reported ad maximum, while the couple of hundred rapes that also happened that week were ignored, and all that valuable airtime devoted instead to sport?"

chrisgaff1000,

Sorry, the post count delayed my reply to you.

I can't help much on what you are asking except to say that the evil mongrel Bryant is where he should be and my hope is that he rots forgotten in gaol.

Dear Suse,

We need only look at the stats regarding this topic.
The ABS stats clearly show that killings have decreased
since the introduction of gun control laws by John Howard
as the link that I gave earlier clearly showed.
And as we know in international terms, the United States is
an extremely violent society with a homicide rate far exceeding
that of any other industrialised nation.
Most other countries severely restrict private handgun
ownership, and the US which doesn't - their homicide rate
is by far higher than the average rate for England, Japan,
Sweden, Switzerland, Australia and Canada.

I'm also glad that I live in Australia and not the US.
As I stated earlier - the proliferation of handguns is
the belief deeply held by many Americans, that gun ownership
is an individual right. However, for granting this liberty
to the individual, American society pays the price in the
deviance of those who abuse it. And it's a very high price
to pay.

cont'd ...

Dear Suse,

John Howard realised the laws were not going
to be easy to put in place because of the anti-gun
control lobby however, he felt it needed to be done.

As he said, "Penalizing decent law-abiding citizens
because of the criminal behaviour of others seemed
unfair ... I understood their misgivings ... but I
felt there was no alternative."

Foxy, you said "....We need only look at the stats regarding this topic.
The ABS stats clearly show that killings have decreased
since the introduction of gun control laws by John Howard
as the link that I gave earlier clearly showed."

The ABS figures clearly show that gun crime/killings was steadily falling before the introduction of Howard's attempt at Uniform National Gun Laws and that it continued to fall at the same statistical rate.

The gun laws did not affect it at all.

Is Mise a low blow from you there.
Highlighting that a footballer unnamed and unknown may be a rapist.
Not much doubt from any section of the community such folk live and yes rape.
Even the currently very clear to those who will look CATHOLIC CHURCH.
Petty stuff from you.
Rape is never OK it always is wrong.
Here in this thread a claim hasbeen made that if victims carried guns less rape/crime would be a result.
Firmly I count myself with an over all majority who I have no doubt,thinks the idea silly.
I too wish to highlight the pure nonsense that sports men and women are more likely to rape than others, as a slur from a person needlessly and wrongly targeting a group whilignoreing the true nature of rape.

One of the good things the US has going for it is that the citizenry is too well armed, & too belligerent for any president or government to ever take their democracy from them.

We on the other hand would probably have trouble raising a militia capable of defending ourselves against Fiji.

If we needed another Kokoda type effort, we wouldn't have enough citizens capable of pointing a rifle to form a militia.

When I was a kid, everyone in Townsville had a pea rifle to help keep the flying fox menace down to a reasonable level.

Now we have no rifles, & flying foxes are protected. And we wonder why our society is collapsing.

Dear Is Mise,

I based my information on the following two links:

http://guncontrol.org.au/
(note the graphs given)

And

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/

Dear Hasbeen,

Do we really want a homicide rate here in Australia
far exceeding that of any other industrialised nation
like it is in the US. Do we really want our cities recording
more murders in a typical year than does the whole of
England, as they do in single American cities like Chicago,
Houston, or Los Angeles. Do we really want our handgun
homicide rates to be hundreds of times the average rate for
England, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland, and Canada, as it is
in the US.

There's much to admire about the United States - but no
restriction on private handguns isn't one of them.

Foxy'
Your reference to Gun Control Australia is useless as they have no provenence, we don't know their membership etc., they might well be a front for the Communist Party of Australia or even for Lee Rhiannon!

Your second ref. is better as they use information from Dr. Jenny Mouzos.

See her conclusions on the effect of the UNF laws.

"....However the observed declines in total homicide and firearm homicide continued a long-term trend rather than the effect of the Port Arthur incident."

< http://books.google.com.au/books?id=nChWOCgeX2oC&pg=PA134&lpg=PA134&dq=dr+jenny+mouzos&source=bl&ots=LNDHFXy77y&sig=vLvHFReqH1eUYiMVzj9PHvVFStc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BbNXUv_FFc-TiAeD-IDoAw&ved=0CDIQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=dr%20jenny%20mouzos&f=false >

To get back on topic (I do apologize!).

The wife of a good Army friend in India was the object of an attempted rape.
She is petite and very feminine.
She gave the would be rapist the stiff four finger jab to the solar plexus then snapped his neck with a one hand frontal jolt.
She just happens to be an Officer in 'Special Forces'.

She said that she did not intend to kill him but that she acted instinctively. She refused stress leave.

Dear Is Mise,

If you want more information on whether gun control in
Australia is effective - I suggest you Google
the subject on the web - there's quite a few
references and reports available - as well as
"Factcheck" and reputable news agencies such as - Reuters.

Foxy,

You are forever cherry-picking sections of unsupported comment from flakey sites and presenting it as 'evidence'. Once again you crash on with your broken record replies, expecting others to provide facts and reputable sources to support their contentions (which they usually do) while you do not return the favour.

You still have not answered these questions about that flakey gun control site with the phantom behind it, and which refuses membership:

<Tell us now, since the person or interests behind that site will not, exactly how anyone can join that 'organisation' which appears to be just a front? It refuses membership, right?

So how many members does it represent and who are they?

Where do they get their funding, who are the sponsors?

What $$ and other support does that flakey gun control site get from George Soros, the Hungarian born American billionaire currency dealer and has either or both of the one or two people responsible for the site, been sponsored by Soros to travel to the US for training and activism.>

BTW, you referred to Reuters as a trustworthy site. Reuters was the news service that linked George Soros seed money to the 'Occupy Wall Street' activism. What possible motivation could a currency speculator have for supporting a movement that disrupted the share market, causing the value of shares to plummet? Think a bit.

You really need to balance those slanted, cherry-picked factoids you get from that gun control site with some fact and common sense. You are unaware for instance that Japan has the highest suicide rate in the world. Using the 'logic' you employ to 'prove' your phobia against legally held guns (it is always your modus operandi to conflate the offences of criminals and their illegal weapons with the legally held firearms of law-abiding licensed citizens) the world highest suicide rate of gun banning Japan proves that banning firearms causes suicide.

Dear Is Mise,

The fear of the crime touches virtually all
women, instilling in them a wariness of male
strangers, and an apprehension about walking
alone at night or being in deserted places.

If I had a daughter, I would certainly see to it
that she had some sort of "self-defense"
training at an appropriate age.

Your friend was fortunate in her training.
I can't help but wonder though if the story would
have been different had her attacker been
armed. Is she going to get any sort of counseling
at all? She may feel that she doesn't need it now
but it could have serious side-effects later on.

@ Posted by Lexi, Thursday, 17 January 2013 7:54:30 PM,
"The fear of rape touches virtually all women,
instilling in them a wariness of male strangers,
and an apprehension about walking alone at night
or being in deserted places."

You were wrong then and you are wrong now. That is not a fear that is reasonably held. Your fear of men and strangers is as irrational as the hoplophobia and sledging you direct at the thousands of very respectable and law-abiding Australians with the excellent character to vault the high hurdle for a firearms licence.

However, just to reiterate and it has been pointed out to you before, any place that could possibly be considered as risky for women is also risky for men. Probably more so since the serious assaults directed at men by strangers vastly exceeds that for women.

So you can drop your usual anti-male gender slant for a start.

But a nice rushed post from you nonetheless in your usual scurry to bury any posts that question your cherry-picked factoids. So predictable.

Foxy,

Most soldiers couldn't care less about people that they've killed.

Her husband is of the opinion that she killed her assailant because she thought that he deserved it.
Had he been armed she would have shot him as she carries a pistol.

Foxy my sweet, don't forget that everyone in Switzerland has an army rifle by law. They kill very few, & probably prevent more killing than they cause.

When I was a kid in Townsville, or a number of NSW country towns, most people had a rifle in a cupboard, ours leant up against the corner of dads wardrobe, but they also killed very few, except perhaps suicides. Things like home invasions & drive by shootings just did not happen.

Today with the general population disarmed, we are getting much more gun crime that at any previous time.

Gun control is a sop to those who are scared of their own shadow, & about as useful as tits on a bull.

Foxy good morning.
You show a rare strength in defending your right to your view.
Not quite sure why it is considered OK to target you and other females with sarcasm and talking down.
Not in doubt however you have taken on the defense of a view the vast majority of Australians hold.
You will agree not every opinion is based on thought and understanding.
I however truly, can not understand why such a shaky ladder is being built to prop up a view this country,s voters would never ever except.

Dear Is Mise,

I appreciate your clarifying things regarding
your friend. And Thanks also for understanding
my generalisations regarding women and rape.
Of course within those generalisations -
there are individual differences as your friend's
case illustrates.

Dear Hasbeen,

I appreciate and fully understand your take on gun-control.
As did John Howard. "Penalizing decent law-abiding citizens
because of the criminal behaviour of others..." does seem
unfair. He understood the misgivings - but felt there was
no alternative. I agree with him - and that is my opinion
based on my experiences, having lived in the US for more
than ten years.

Dear Belly,

Thank You.

But don't concern yourself.

I don't read or respond to posts that begin
with personal insults

Hi Foxy and Belly,

Belly...I know you've struggled with written language (and done exceedingly well:)

Just wanted to tell you that you have a real talent for metaphor.

Just saying : )

Dear Poirot,

Thank You.

Coming from someone who has a wonderful way
with words that's quite a compliment.

"Let us be greateful to people who make us happy,
they are the charming gardeners who make our
souls blossom."

(Marcel Proust).

Thanks to Poirot and too Foxy.
My battle toe ducate myself continues.
And some huddles will remain too high to get over.
But my memory is of rape in the western suburbs of Sydney long before the one that first comes to mind.
Well series of rapes.
Those events always showed a true hatred for the victims coming from the perpetrators.
I am just am unsure *any former police officer* can think more guns is in any way a good thing.
Foxy I have an admition, in my early post teen age years I as a self improvement tool took part in formal debating.
And my some times wit becomes all to easily twit like.

Foxy,

What you 'don't respond to' is any questioning of your opinions AT ALL. You just broken record and get all bent out of shape.

Honestly now, admit it. You have continued to put up the same old, same old slanted stuff for years and you have always reacted the same way when challenged: diversion, ignore, broken record and lecturing the errant posters who had the temerity to query your opinions.

- Which I have demonstrated by quoting some of your previous posts in this and other threads. In fact you are often word for word, obviously just cut and paste over years.

Now it was you who quoted from that flakey gun control site in this thread. But true to form, you will not respond to the very obvious questions that arise (to quote from my previous post which you continue to duck):

<Tell us now, since the person or interests behind that site will not, exactly how anyone can join that 'organisation' which appears to be just a front? It refuses membership, right?

So how many members does it represent and who are they?

Where do they get their funding, who are the sponsors?

What $$ and other support does that flakey gun control site get from George Soros, the Hungarian born American billionaire currency dealer and has either or both of the one or two people responsible for the site, been sponsored by Soros to travel to the US for training and activism.

BTW, you referred to Reuters as a trustworthy site. Reuters was the news service that linked George Soros seed money to the 'Occupy Wall Street' activism. What possible motivation could a currency speculator have for supporting a movement that disrupted the share market, causing the value of shares to plummet? Think a bit.>
Posted by onthebeach, Friday, 11 October 2013 8:13:52 PM

Just to add and to underline the point, Australians do not appreciate foreign interests interfering in their domestic politics, it that is what is occurring with that flakey gun control site.

Australians do not take to snide, politically-oriented, secretive, political lobbyists who hide behind a grandiose titled site either. It is an 'organisation' of one or two individuals, and their links and sources of dough are...? Does the individual concerned work (who for?), or how does s/he earn(?) an income?

BTW, what links does that site have, if any, with the NSW Greens and what $$ or other support has been given to the Greens?

All relevant questions.

Dear Belly,

Each of us goes through transitions and transformations.
The important thing is that we acknowledge them and
learn from them. I don't have the answers to the big
questions in life. I'm still on my own road to discovery
and everything is relative, everything has its story; and
everyone has obstacles to overcome. They're our greatest
teachers. You have integrity, and are a gentleman.
I'm proud to call you a friend.

May you continue to post on this forum - for a very long time.

Take care.

"Just to add and to underline the point, Australians do not appreciate foreign interests interfering in their domestic politics...."

Erk!...unless his name is Rupert Murdoch.

: )

Repeat offender rapists seem to be a phenomenon of our time; I wonder why?

How about a few suggestions on how rape may be avoided?

Surely some among the posters could show how a seven stone woman in her seventies could stop a 25 year old serial rapist, weighing 14 stone, from violating and murdering her?

Dear Is Mise,

As I mentioned in an earlier post -

Teaching women self-defence (some form of martial arts)
would definitely help against any attacker. It's good
fitness training as well, and would prevent the woman
from panicking when attacked. Just a thought. Also -
education is important. There are many community centres that
provide classes and are part of a lecture series
to teach women what to do
if being attacked - it's well worth while investigating.
Being prepared (as the girl-guides taught us) is the key.

Dear Foxy,

She's in her seventies and weighs half the weight of her 25 year old attacker.

Martial arts aren't an option for her, but is there any way that she could stop him?

Why is she, this vulnerable old lady, denied any thing for the purpose of self defence by the State?

Anything to protect the attacker it seems.

It is naive to suggest that martial arts would stop an assailant. The solutions recommended by any competent instructor would certainly include avoiding risk in the first place, by not presenting as a target or deliberately walking in harm's way.

Such proactive treatments are not welcomed by feminists who stupidly and provocatively claim it would be sexism and 'telling women what to do with their bodies' (?!) to even suggest avoiding or reducing risk. So I do not propose to go there, just to reflect that very few 'martial arts' have any worth in practical situations. Spin kicks are ridiculous. Legs are best used to run away. I do not propose either to get into a hairy nostril, or is it hairy armpit, discussion of the various martial arts.

What is relevant however is the reverse standard of proof that will most definitely apply if an attacker is injured by the victim. That is a matter I raised earlier that is being studiously ignored by left whingers who put the assailant's rights before the victim's.

Home burglaries are serious crimes. Home burglaries are commonplace and the clearance rate is poor. It is in the home that we are most likely to be called upon to defend ourselves. Yet if your dog should nip an offender in your house or heaven forbid you should injure your attacker, Plod will be interrogating YOU and charging You with a serious offence and your Jack Russell is likely to be classified as a dangerous dog.

to be continued..

continued..

If you are ever called upon to defend yourself or your loved ones, you had better first be aware of things the prosecutor might define as weapons. The court has the benefit of time and hindsight. It will find a difference a 'kitchen knife' and any other which may be well be classed as a 'weapon' under the broad provisions of weapons Acts.

You will be required to defend your decision to defend yourself and the type and amount of force used. Those weapons Acts are not just there to 'control' firearms, even if one could be taken from a safe, assembled and a cartridge taken from another locked storage, in time. Courts will also be optimistic about the availability of police to attend and their swift action on arrival.

You see, it isn't as simple as Foxy and others who protect offenders and rationalise their crimes as 'society's fault' are telling us. They, the self-titled 'Progressives', have also changed laws to protect the offenders and deter and punish anyone who defends herself and her family. It isn't just that you are not allowed to use a firearm either, although that would result in very serious charges indeed and loss of licence and all firearms forever.

Because outside of the likelihood of pain, crippling and possible death from an assailant in your home, you will also have to contend with the certain aftermath of days of interrogation and probable charges if you lay a finger on that prepared, well practised and determined assailant who invaded your home.

There are well publicised examples of home owners who have been through that recently. Thanks to the Shooters and Fishers Party, in NSW that reverse onus of proof foisted upon ordinary citizens who defend themselves has been changed back. But even so, police still interrogate the homeowner to see if there is a way they can be charged with an offence, although the NSW citizen will usually have the (S&FP amended) law on his side, thank goodness.

Dear Is Mise,

Sgt Darrren and his wife Beth Laur wrote the
book, "Total Awareness" A Woman's Safety Book."
They list their top 10 Safety Tips for Women at
the following link:

http://powertochange.com/life/personalsafetytips/

I hope this helps, and I look forward to seeing you
on another discussion for me this one has now run
its course.

This is an example from NSW, where at least citizens have some legal protection for defending themselves because the S&FP amended the law. However the victim who defended himself in his own home (and the investigating police finally agreed it was defence) was still pursued by the DPP.

http://www.news.com.au/national-news/thiefs-fatal-error-homeowner-donald-brooke-who-stabbed-intruder-faces-harrowing-wait/story-e6frfkvr-1226143138399

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/05/27/18/51/man-charged-with-murder-after-stabbing-intruder

Be assaulted or defend yourself and be pursued by the DPP, going broke in the process from legal bills, that is the decision. This man, Donald Brooke, was also pursued relentlessly by the media circus and activists , with photographs of his home and Google maps featuring in media reports. The victim is re-victimised by the DPP, the media and by activists (who also alleged racism!) protecting the rights of criminals.

Dear Foxy,

Obviously you have reached the conclusion that only a firearm could give that sweet 70 year old woman a chance, hence the bow out.

But before you go, could you tell me the last time an armed police woman mas raped?

To the sundry,

"Woman Killed Would-Be Rapist in Self-Defense"
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=125846&page=1

"The Man Who Would Be “Rapist” shot 9 times by his would-be victim

Read the complete article at: http://christopherdiarmani.com/4619/human-rights/self-defense-liberty/the-man-who-would-be-rapist-shot-9-times-by-his-would-be-victim/

Not in Australia of course.

Please seek the advice of the State police weapons/firearms branch in your State before following the advice concerning 'pepper spray' (or any other chemical) given in Foxy's link. Also regarding carrying a 'self defence tool' or 'weapon' to use on an attacker. That is a good way to end up facing charges yourself.

That is the problem where posters presume to give advice but are ignorant of weapons and firearms regulations.

However, women could return to those styling combs with the metal tail (not an easily broken cheapy though). See here,

http://www.ebay.com/itm/DIANE-PROFESSIONAL-8252-ALUMINUM-8-RAT-TAIL-METAL-COMB-2-COMBS-/230964164799

BTW, Eyes are the only target area where most could get a moment's pause from an attacker. Miss and hit the nose, ear or other bits, not too shabby either.

I find it incredible that people on here think the lives of some are more important than others. It would appear once again that those of the left view some more equal than others!

You have done a remarkable job of highlighting the hypocrisy of our lefty leaning nut-jobs, onthebeach. Though how you can endure conversing with fools that have their fingers firmly planted in their ears whilst blurting la, la, la all the while is truly amazing :~)

I have a couple of these fool living in my street so figured I'd put up a sign similar to this in my own front yard. Only because they never hear what anyone else has to say.

http://huntinginvirginia.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/gun_yard_sign.jpg

here in case that one doesn't work.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_5zdog9viOpw/S6yaJAYqkjI/AAAAAAAABog/DNBufNkbZMY/s640/neighbor---guns1_o.jpg

And I can promise you that if I saw them being attacked or robbed, I would surely look the other way, the same for their children. It's already happened once. They don't deserve to breath IMHO!
After all, they are protesting against people having the right to protect their "very sacred gift of life".

How I choose to protect myself from harm and what tools I use is none of their god damn business. This is my life where talking about and that of my family. You only get ONE!

My creator instilled in me from day one an instinct to live and avoid harm. How these fools can blather on about people suppressing those instincts is just crap!
Faced with the situation where their lives are in danger they will do what any human being would do and that is fight back by any means available to them. They are all talk and full of sh!t.

If someone so much as hints they intend to do me or my family harm they will follow me to hell, you can bet on that!

I have it on good authority should you ever be faced with a would be assailant in your home (I hope you never do). Make sure he never speaks again and tell no one. You'll never be found out!

We of the left of center, even if it is by only one degree, indeed those at home right in the center.
Should know some of our opponents are from the truly lost far right.
They may claim to be Liberals, but have no true idea what a Liberal is.
They chew at their own feet, ignoring Howard had much support, from all sides in his harsh but needed reforms.
Yes! criminals will get guns in any case.
But a wife or husband angry and hurting should not know a pistol is within reach.
We started out talking of the totally unacceptable early release of a sexual predator.
After the publics rage drove authority's to do our bidding, he stays in prison.
Our very author said that was wrong.
We see others asking for guns, to kill, rapists and others, without trial without maybe justification.
America saw a youth in my view MURDERED at the hands of a person we, thankfully will never see walking our streets armed and waiting to kill.

RawMustard,

Thank you.

I get the impression that some, perhaps many, people are very dependent on the State and imagine that the State, ie government, can and ought take care of everything for them. They feel entitled too.

Very likely they were raised by doting parents in comfortable suburbia. Post-WW2 girls were treated as little princesses by their mums and society. - Not so much country girls, who had responsibilities and had to pitch in and help, like the rest of the family.

But then, when I went into tertiary education (I had been in boarding schools where most students were country kids), I was astonished to find that both the male and female youths at the time couldn't do the basics to keep themselves going when they moved into a flat. Imagine if they did not have access to that meat that is grown on bubble-wrap trees! It is a bit surprising to learn that even back in the Sixties, 85%+ of the Australian population were urban, not the image many promote of themselves at all.

Presently it would be well over 95%+ who are urban born and bred. That explains why some Australians could not survive a week without Woolworths. Some would certainly die of starvation if Woolworths and Centrelink both closed. Or is that Woolworths, the Grog Shop and Centrelink? They simply cannot survive without others to provide for them, think for them, do the dirty work for them and to save them, including from themselves.

So it comes as no shock that they expect the State to always take care of their security and it is quite a shock and 'someone's fault' where it doesn't happen. Too late for many to learn new tricks! Especially where they have never gone so far towards independent living as to plant and tend a tomato to fruiting.

to be continued..

continued..

However in the country (and for some women in smaller towns), women have always regarded their Aussie-made Sportco .22 and .410 shotgun as being as normal and mundane in the kitchen as a butter churn or Dutch door. They had no problem seeing birds off the veggies, the foxes away from the chooks, the dingo from the calves ("Fetch dad's Lee Enfield for me, son") and the occasional two-legged pest off the property as well ("The .410 will do, one near him and the second, buckshot, is for him if he keeps on coming").

Yet there are urban Leftie womyn who claim to be experts on women, who deny other women their birthright to protect themselves that they have exercised so independently for years (and their mothers before them), and provided game for the family stew pot as well in hard times (which was always in arid Australia).

Honestly, when will some of these hissing old urban Leftie geese mind their own backyards for a change and stop interfering in other people's lives and telling them how to do things they could never do themselves?

[Deleted for abuse.]

I am afraid in just the last few words of OTB last post unnecessary words are used to insult a whole section of Australian women folk.
Not reporting it, but it is in my view quite offensive.
I like the way we are moderated.
It is why we have one of this country,s best sites.
Mentioned a few months ago I am a participant in change.org.
It is not a place I visit but one than invites me to play a role in people power things, it will grow.
Not every thing gets my support, but I hope here my hard headed style never lets me slip in to insulting just for fun.
And too that I never forget the man/woman who is always right has not yet been born.
Every now and again on finding my view in the minority I pause and reflect on this.
Are my views on that subject mainstream or not?
In this case is an expressed view, that city house wives who are from the left the reason this country is not asking for us all to have guns?
I offer this to OTB not in friendship but in shock and dismay, do you see Sir after reading your last two posts here why more and more are avoiding you?

In NSW it is an offence to possess Mustard spray, just as it is an offence to possess anything for the purpose of self defence.

Belly,

How would you like to challenge the arguments I put forward? You are pugnacious and rude when it suits you but you wear a very high belt and get all bent out of shape when anyone returns service.

You make it very, very obvious you are completely clueless about weapons and firearms regulations in Australia.

Yet you and others revel in your ignorance and blind, unreasoning bigotry to continually slag the thousands of very respectable, good, law-abiding citizens with the excellent character and lack of criminal history to pass the high hurdle for a firearms.

What about you apologise for that?

So many thousands of those licensed firearms licensed people were previously in the cadet corps, they and others fought for Australia, are people who slave under harsh conditions to provide food for you, or even compete internationally in the very legitimate shooting sports which have a record for safety that even croquet players would be proud of.

Those licensed cgood citizens has the accredited evidence of good character and stability, while their carping critics do not, and in most cases the gutless types who would abuse them and cast unwarranted aspersions about their character hide behind anonymity and a veil of secrecy as is the case for that one or two sly types who are responsible for that nutty gun control site quoted by Foxy. What is that person's reason for secrecy? Could it be the source of funds, lack of members (members are refused) and possible connections with the NSW Greens and shady overseas backers? Is s/he engaged in public employment and using his/her employer's facilities and time for personal purposes? Why the secrecy?

It is you and others like you who should be apologising for deliberately conflating legal, licensed, respectable Australians with those criminals and thugs who are responsible for crime. Yet you, Foxy, the lunar NSW Greens in particular and others like you would defend the criminals. They have rights. You are soft on drug dealing criminals and try to sheet the blame elsewhere as a diversion.

Please apologise!

My editing was poor. Sorry to readers for that.

But honestly, there is very little practical return from constructively criticising the views of the few authoritarian Left bigots with wagons to ride, who shamelessly post the same old, same old, bunkum year in and year out.

Is Mise & onthebeach,
Firstly criminals and would be criminals have no rights except when you attack them.
I have even heard of situations where massive compensation has been awarded to a crim because he tripped over a kids bike in the driveway as he was leaving a break and enter. (duty of care)
Secondly any item that you are carrying that you would not normally carry and it is used to injure, maim or kill an assailant is considered 'Primp Facie' a weapon for the purposes of the relative criminal codes and subject to the reverse onus of proof rules.
Thirdly the argument of unreasonable force defeats itself if there are no witnesses to the action. (Don't leave the witness.criminal alive to testify against you.
Of course when we have to take up arms to defend this country against the invading religious zealots and their fifth column implants it will be the "Gun Crazies" that defend the like to Belly and Foxi and they will do it without recourse to who they are or what they stand for except that they are Australians.
Sad isn't it?

Dear Chris,

Recent surveys tell us that you're much more
likely to get shot by a fat cop if you run.
:-)

BTW: Family members have fought with the Australian
forces in Korea and in Vietnam and several of them have
risen to important ranks in the Australian armed forces.
Some have been honored with Australian and British
decorations. Just thought you should know.

Chris you seem in your words to be trying to tell us how bad criminals are.
Have you got enough time to tell us about the lowest of the low criminal cops?
How about a whole country station stealing the loads from rolled over Trucks?
And when removing it from a butchers he kindly helped them store three t9ons of boxed export food, cool room stealing a side of beef?
HMm not sure if you know same station cops swapping sexual acts with under age girls for the yellow arches stuff?
Many convictions includes a set up that filmed theft from a smashed car by a senior cop, now gone.
Let us not pretend every cop is a worthy one.

Belly
Of course there are bad cops. That's called temptation. I would feel more disposed to your arguments if you were to post some links to these events or at least give me some trigger to them and I can run them up on the system. Then given their truth I will gladly post the information for all to see.

Foxy, "Recent surveys tell us that you're much more likely to get shot by a fat cop if you run."

That is typical of the 'Houso' mentality sledging and abuse you aim at police and the military too whenever you get half an opportunity.

Then you go the "But there are decorated soldiers in the family", who just happened to serve those nations you slam viciously also (although you left out the US this time).

Yeah, right!

Dear Chris,

I hope that you have a sense of humour because the
fat cop joke was simply that - a joke that I obtained
from the web.

You asked for a link regarding police officers
from Belly - this one should be of some interest and please
note this is not my opinion of police officers - its merely
providing you with the information that you asked for:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/39804.html

I do not work nor am associated with the ABC in any capacity. :-)

otb,

This is to clarify something for you.

I do not sledge the police, the military, or other nations.
I cannot be held responsible for your lack of comprehension skills.

I stand by my posting record. I would appreciate your
stopping your personal attacks on me. And addressing me.
I no longer read your posts and I certainly don't value your
opinion.
I have tried to ignore you as
I have no desire to inter-act with you.
Put simply -
Back off - and leave me alone!

It is always a 'joke'.

Not so funny for this officer and his family though,

<Sergeant Gary Hamrey shot in face during a hold up, returns fire
AAP September 27, 2013 12:35PM

A GOLD Coast police officer is being hailed for extraordinary bravery after firing on two bandits who shot him in the face.

And when help finally arrived, his first concern was for the welfare of his police dog.

Gold Coast dog squad chief Sergeant Gary Hamrey was shot without warning early today after cornering two men who had allegedly held up the Arundel Tavern at Parkwood.

The alleged bandits had fled into a nearby residential street and holed themselves up beside a garden shed.

In dangerous, dark conditions, Sgt Hamrey and his police dog tracked down the pair, who were armed with a gun and a machete.

As he approached, the veteran officer was shot in the face.

Despite his injuries, he and a colleague were able to return fire, striking the bandits in the legs and feet.

"Despite the fact he was wounded, he was able to regain his composure and he and the other officer both returned fire," Assistant Commissioner Graham Rynders told reporters.
.....

The shooting came before a court delayed handing down sentences for a man and a woman convicted of murdering another Gold Coast police officer in 2011.

Detective Damien Leeding was fatally wounded as he responded to an armed holdup at the Pacific Pines Tavern that year.

Today is also Police Remembrance Day, which remembers the police who have died in the line of duty.
.....
He says police numbers on the Gold Coast are inadequate, and penalties for firearm offences must be toughened.>

http://tinyurl.com/Gold-Coast-shootings

to be continued..

contd..

Images after the shooting murder of Coomera detective Sen-Constable Damian Leeding outside an ordinary suburban Gold Coast tavern,

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2013/09/25/458816_crime-and-court-news.html

Why would you ever want to deliberately conflate these ferals with their illegal weapons with respectable, law-abiding citizens who are legally licensed and farm, compete in international events and cull pest animals from farms? That is difficult to explain outside of hoplophobia and odd values.

You, Belly and others really ought to apologise. But you will never do that. You will never even attempt to understand and come to grips with your own crooked thinking that results from your blind prejudices.

You apparently possess compartmentalised minds where it is quite OK, laudable even, to disrespect and sledge police and respectable citizens, yet you are all for the 'rights' of criminals.

That post needs attention, even if I have time and again stated my pure contempt for its author.
Free speech demands he have the right to his views.
So have I the right to mine.
First I unlike our poster UNDERSTAND some have a good reason for thoughts that are not shared.
What then is the reason for OTB being so rude and crude to many posters.
Is the Gentleman a writer of Children's story books.
He tells me I should be sorry!
For what? not my stated view a cop, a good one is worth far more than we ever could afford to pay them.
Both in NSW and Qld police deaths the bloke invents my thoughts and then slanders me with that invention, I nearly broke down on hearing off that police death and others of kids never to see the dad they loved!, every killer of cops should be hung!
This scramble egg of a bloke invents thoughts I do not hold then convicts me with holding them.
This country is not Hill Billy heaven, not ranting red necked Hell!
We the majority, from every side of politics, DO NOT WANT GUN CONTROL TO BE TAKEN AWAY.
Now may I say as this poster has to see very many in words less offensive than those rants he uses, Sir I place no value on your mind and thoughts.
As I time and again express my wish to have no contact are you OTB trolling me?
Post what you wish but not please not in your blind and rude fashion referring to me.

Belly, you said "We the majority, from every side of politics, DO NOT WANT GUN CONTROL TO BE TAKEN AWAY."

I agree with you, I want to see more gun control particularly with regard to criminals.
I want to see controls in place that allow a vulnerable person, such as the lady in her seventies, being able to legally possess a pistol for her personal defence.
I want to see the farmer's wife legally allowed to keep the .410 shotgun in her kitchen and a couple of shells in her apron pocket, so that she can deal with any predators that come around.
At the moment she has to unlock the gun safe and then the ammunition box, by which time the fox has killed all of her chickens.
Yes, we need gun control, sane gun control that allows the law abiding to have the most effective means of defence.

Do you think that victims of rape and murder, such as Anita Cobby, should have been denied a means of protection that could have stopped their attackers?

Same old story
None of the 'bad guys' handed in their guns.

'Gun control' is based on the flawed premise that banning guns will ban murder, or (more limited) that banning guns will ban murder by firearm.

The stupidity of the claim is so obvious as to not require any argument against it. However, the premise is immediately refuted by the recent shootings of police in Queensland.

A senior Qld police officer commenting on the shooting said, "police numbers on the Gold Coast are inadequate, and penalties for firearm offences must be toughened".

Similar statements have been made by experienced police time and time again. They have also said that the violence is linked to gangs and drugs.

Honestly, does it take a brick Council dunny to fall on the heads of some to make them realise that 'gun control' is absolute BS. It is just populist spin to direct attention away from the simple truths that:

- government has no simple, effective remedy for the burgeoning crime associated with illicit drugs;

- many members of the public support the gangs by consuming recreational drugs themselves, thereby delivering millions of dollars to the criminal networks; and

- police and authorities are losing the battle. Taxes would have to be higher to provide anywhere near the police presence and cooperation to even slow the growth of drug trafficking and the crimes associated with it.

chrisgaff1000, "None of the 'bad guys' handed in their guns"

That is right. It is a fact that some here really don't want to know.

It also escapes their attention that there always was a ban on unlicensed persons obtaining and using firearms. There always were prohibited weapons as well.

That means of course that wrongdoers couldn't get a licence and they were never allowed to own or use one. That was pre-Howard and the Howard inspired 'initiatives' only changed the laws affecting the honest, law-abiding, licensed citizens.

In addition, the full spectrum of possible offences that could be committed with firearms were already covered by existing laws. For example, killing was always against the law and regardless of method.

otb,

Once again - stop it.

As Belly and others have pointed out to you on
various threads in this forum, "You invent my
thoughts and then slander me with that invention.
Post what you will but please do not in your blind
and rude fasion (vile) refer to me."

I am not, nor ever have been against police officers,
and pro criminals and accusing me of that and other
despicable things is vile,
and not admitting that it is your invention entirely is
totally dishonest. Go away - and find a kindred spirit
to talk to - there's plenty of them to be found on this
forum. I just happen to not be one of them.

Foxy,

Like Belly, you constantly get bent out of shape when anyone challenges your opinions. Not that you are slow to deliver a biff, either.

There is an an alternative.
You could 'man up' and counter with your own facts and argument what I (and others) have said in return to your posts.

Such as when I pointed out that the site you linked to is hosted by a phantom and there are various other unexplained and doubtless convenient omissions of detail. Why is it so shrouded in mystery?

Or when you say silly, provocative things (jokes you say) such as your, "Recent surveys tell us that you're much more likely to get shot by a fat cop if you run". Someone has to counter lies like that, or the become the truth.

Or when you direct readers to a site recommending the purchase and use of a restricted chemical.

Or when you continually bounce up with the same old same old mantras that have been dispelled so many times before and by so many well-meaning forumites.

Now what about going back and answering some of those posts?

Foxy,

otb is an expert at inventing other people's thoughts, fictionalising their actions and motives, etc.

He's just done a great snow job on my supposedly "never vounteering" over on an articles' thread.

otb says to Foxy:

"Like Belly, you constantly get bent out of shape when anyone challenges your opinions. Not that you are slow to deliver a biff, either.

There is an an alternative.
You could 'man up' and counter with your own facts and argument what I (and others) have said in return to your posts."

otb doesn't realise that it's bad form to verbal others and attribute to them thoughts and actions which he/she invents to replace cogent argument.

otb is an example of the worst kind of debater because most of his/her rhetoric is invention to service the rest of the bollocks he/she comes out with.

otb makes it up as otb goes along - sprinkled with faux outrage to spice it all up.

Nasty piece of goods.

(as Granny Poirot used to say:)

There are 33 pages of thought and work by various posters.

You have blown in twice Poirot.

Your first effort was about Rupert Murdoch, an obsession of yours.

<Poirot, "Erk!...unless his name is Rupert Murdoch.">

Your second is to complain about another thread.

BTT

But, otb,...don't you like it when your tactics are called out.

I'm a little fascinated by your penchant to troll women on this forum.

When you launch your extended diatribes and hang on "like a terrier" it's nearly always towards a woman.

You've tried that stunt on me numerous times, but Foxy has that dubious honour on this thread.

You are notable, when you go after someone, for usualy employing invented perspectives which you then attribute to your target - twisting their line of argument and reasoning to suit your agenda and to taint them with confected vices.

How like Loudy, who tends to do the same thing, to call for BTT.

You keep doing it, and I'll keep calling you out.

It isn't always about you, Poirot.

BTT

Dear Poirot,

You've put it all in a nutshell.

The man insults, invents, atacks and then
thinks you're going to respond and have an
argument with him. He's not interested in a
discussion. I was silly enough to try to
engage with him, even offered him a truce - hoping
he'd change his tact - but Suse was right about him
all along - he wasn't
about to change. Ah well, you live and learn.
Time to move on.

Yeah, Foxy...we move on.

: )

.........

otb,

"It isn't always about you, Poirot.

BTT"

Lol!...straight out of the Loudmouth book of sidestepping BS!

I don't think any of you lot should be allowed to play in the same sandbox

Dear Chris,

Sandboxes are ok.

They're finer than beach sand
and not near as gritty.

Poirot, I don't think you should be so mean to Loudmouth (or anyone else) as to put him in the same sandbox as OTB . His sandbox is full of dirt...

Foxy, have you seen the new OLO article on guns called "The Machine's Gun Culture"?
The author thinks just like I do about guns, and probably most intelligent Australians.

The usual shoot-em-up good-ol'-boys will complain of course, but we won't let that worry us at all...

Foxy,
"Dear Is Mise,

Sgt Darrren and his wife Beth Laur wrote the
book, "Total Awareness" A Woman's Safety Book."
They list their top 10 Safety Tips for Women at
the following link:

http://powertochange.com/life/personalsafetytips/

I hope this helps, and I look forward to seeing you
on another discussion for me this one has now run
its course.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 13 October 2013 5:06:46 PM"

That's what you said; are you back in this discussion?

If you are, how about answering some of the questions that I put to you?

Suse,

Re: Loudmouth.

He's always given Poirot some "special" treatment.

Eg...

"SM, you said "small words" ! Some of the words you used had four and even more syllables: 'confidentiality' for instance. How do you expect a up-herself half-wit like Poirot to understand those ?!"

(And that was on one of his more courteous days.)

So, yes, I would put him in the same receptacle as otb

Lol!

Dear Is Mise,

I had every intention of leaving this discussion
but then there were remarks made about me
personally that I simply could no longer ignore.

My views as far as this discussion is concerned
are quite clear so there's no point in re-stating
them.

As for your questions regarding the last time
a police woman was raped? I don't have the statistics
for that - because I don't think that the Australian
Bureau of Statistics or the Department of Criminology
lists female rapes by the
professions of the female victims. However, you can
Google the Australian Defence Force female cadets -
whose rape allegations are currently under investigation
by the ADF. There may be some interesting things you
could learn from that.

As for allowing an elderly lady to have a gun to protect
herself. That's not my decision to make - but those of
the people who would assess her - prior to granting or not
granting her the licence to carry the handgun.

Dear Suse,

No I haven't seen the article so Thanks for that.
I'll go and read it tomorrow - I'm a bit tired
at the moment - had a very busy day.
Again Thanks for the reference.

Foxy,

Interesting how you are forever in for some verbal biff against any poster who challenges your opinions, but you cannot answer some simple questions that have been put concerning that flakey gun control site you linked to, for instance.

Suseonline,

Your attitude and values were expressed in your first post on the thread. To quote,

"If this rapist was raping men, he would never get out of jail."
Posted by Suseonline, Tuesday, 1 October 2013 8:33:46 AM

Poirot,

Dear Old Tin of fruit, it cannot always be about you. You jealously guard the stage for yourself in so many threads, even if that is by endlessly repeating the same line. Nice try here with your,

"<Poirot, "Erk!...unless his name is Rupert Murdoch.">

Your 'Three (authoritarian Left) Amigos' act with Suseonline and Foxy/Lexi/? has played too many stages and is over-exposed, as is your over-done 'I am a Lady' act,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4THO9-N--k4

Anyhow, doubtless Foxy/Lexy/? and the equally unrepentent Suseonline can sally forth knowing that regardless of whatever evidence is provided, their opinions will never be affected.

It does take a lot of hands over eyes and ears and "La la la la", but hey, that is part of the game you play, eh what? All of that practice over so many years posting the same old, same old, and cut and paste as well. LOL

There you go, another thread disrupted just as you wished. The Three (authoritarian Left) Amigos take pride in that and do it well.

Foxy,

No one is asking you to make a decision on whether the 70 year old may have a gun to protect herself, I'm asking you your OPINION on whether she should be given the means of saving her life against a young, fit male intent on rape and/or murder.

Do you think that she would be morally justified if he attacked her and she, fearing for her life, killed him?

You said "As for allowing an elderly lady to have a gun to protect
herself. That's not my decision to make - but those of
the people who would assess her - prior to granting or not
granting her the licence to carry the handgun."

That's not possible in Australia because fearing for one's life is not a reason to have a firearm, self-protection from violent criminals is not a reason either; if you are going to argue the toss, or give advice, at least get a nodding acquaintance with the law.

".....Nice try here with your,

"<Poirot, "Erk!...unless his name is Rupert Murdoch.">"

Why thank you, otb.

It was in response to some naive joker making this comment:

"Just to add and to underline the point, Australians do not appreciate foreign interests interfering in their domestic politics...."

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/outcry-after-rapist-jailed-for-2--years-20131016-2vmtz.html
The link gives details of a rape.
Justice was bashed and raped too, by the idiot who handed down this sentence.
2 and a half years for such an act against such a victim.
I weary at the entrenched and un-careing way we handle the victim, and fail to truly address the perpetrator.
We can only hope the community's unhappiness with the issues this thread addressed have not been hidden by gun nuts inferring wrongly people want guns for protection.

Is Mise,

I very much enjoyed our debate about the Game Council of NSW and Mr Boyle a while back. I am happy to report the following for your information and edification:

"After almost a decade of mismanagement and the wasteful taxpayer-funded promotion of recreational hunting in NSW, the Parliament of New South Wales voted this evening to finally abolish the Game Council. The Greens NSW have long campaigned for the abolition of the Game Council and today were proud to deliver the crucial five votes in the NSW Upper House to deliver that outcome." A message from David Shoebridge MLC.

Now I can say, Mr Boyle has been well and truly LANCED! The next target is to vote out the pair of 'Skippy killers' from the Shooters and Hooters Party, Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Even Dummer .

Paul,

You are well off topic, so far so that I won't point out the obvious.

Just the LNP and Greens, without the Greens amendments.

Opposed by Labor, CDP, and the Shooters and Fishers Party.

Premier Barry O'Farrell using the Greens. He will have some larger payback somewhere.

Is Mise; There was no need to reply I was just passing on that good bit of news from my mate Dave. It was only for your information and edification:
Thanks for that OTB, no matter how the vote was, the fact remains Boyle is busted! Fatty O'Barrell is useful for something. Maybe now we can get him to leave the states hospitals alone.
Now back to the topic at hand.

Dear Is Mise,

Let me make something quite clear.
Of course I am not against any person's right to
defend themselves when attacked. That's why I did
suggest that women get the proper training from an
early age. What I do have a problem with is unrestricted
gun ownership as it exists in the United States. Most
countries have restrictions and laws concerning guns.
And the US in allowing a "carte blanch" attitude towards
guns pays a very high price for it by the people who abuse
the system.

You can't drive a car without a licence, so you should not be
able to own a gun unless you meet the requirements for doing
so. This won't of course prevent people from getting guns
illegally, but I don't see any other alternative, as John Howard
stated.

Foxy; now that's not true "Most countries have restrictions and laws concerning guns" lots of peace loving countries besides the USA have unrestricted gun laws. Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia just to name a few. And these jokers want to add Australia to that list!
I advocate more guns for the army, female army cadets so they can shoot male cadets who rape and humiliate them. Because of public opinion the military these days, outwardly condemns rape and bastardisation of cadets, but at one time, like the police force, it was seen as part of the culture, the attitude was/is "Toughen up girlie, we know ya love it, just a bit of slap and tickle, and keep your mouth shut!"

Dear Paul,

Thanks for the humour.

I needed it!

Foxy, never let the mob on here get ya down. They can't insult ya if your "uninsultable". I treat this forum as a bit of a joke, never taking anyone that serious including myself, who reads it, Barack Obama, well not this week, he's a bit busy with cash flow problems to pop in for a chat.

Dear Foxy,

Gun ownership in the USA is not unrestricted, far from it.
The USA has more gun laws than Australia.

Not only do you need to brush up on the gun laws, there and here, but also on the driving laws.
Anyone in Australia can legally drive a car/motor vehicle without doing a driving test, having a licence or being in anyway restricted by vehicle type or horsepower.

Just how could the 70 year old lady protect herself from that 25 year old rapist?
You say that you believe that she should be able to do so, but she only weighs 7 stone (wet), so come on, give us all some practical ideas.
Perhaps you or another poster might tell us how, in your opinion Anita Cobby could have escaped from the five men who raped, tortured and murdered her.
You never know, your advice might save some woman in the future.

Paul1405, "And these jokers want to add Australia to that list!"

While that might appeal to the peanut gallery it is a misrepresentation of the views expressed in this thread, mine especially.

I am not aware of anyone who has proposed abolition of all restriction as you say, in particular the firearms licence, which is and always was, the only robust control in the system.

Your fellow Australians with firearms licences are very respectable law-abiding people of good character. They complete the requisite training which also covers the regulations in detail. They should know their oats where the regulations are concerned.

When they are telling you that the bureaucratic paper chase of the Howard inspired changes are poorly targeted, do not treat the real risks and are wasteful of police resources - directing police onto looking over the shoulders of respectable licensed citizens instead of criminals - you should stop and listen. Why do you imagine that such people, often with decades of obeying the laws and being model citizens and probably having a firearms licence for many years too, would be misinforming you? What possible reasons could they have?

Australia has very low gun crime and numbers were trending down before Howard, and after. NZ has low gun crime, with high ownership numbers.

I have never met anyone with a firearms licence or a senior, experienced police officer who didn't agree that criminals can always get whatever tools they want. Howard made no difference to that. All agree too that the effective treatments are severe penalties for illegal ownership and illegal use, and a more trained police, with better cooperation between jurisdictions.

The short terms of Parliaments ensure that politicians are about populism and that is problematical. They are unlikely too to give police the resources and cooperation between jurisdictions they require for effective policing.

Continuing lawlessness by OMG gangs has seen some cooperation between the the federal and State governments, which is good.

http://tinyurl.com/OMG-laws-Qld

My "All agree too that the effective treatments are severe penalties for illegal ownership and illegal use, and a more trained police, with better cooperation between jurisdictions.",

should have been,

"All agree too that the effective treatments are severe penalties for illegal ownership and illegal use, AND MORE TRAINED POLICE, with better cooperation between jurisdictions."

- The police need higher numbers of fully trained police out there on the ground, not sitting in offices entering useless details on the white elephant gun registries for example. The criminals don't buy from legitimate sources and they certainly don't register their guns. Nor do apply for licences which they wouldn't get anyhow.

Dear Is Mise,

Thank You for your advice. I have made a
note to myself to brush up on US gun laws,
Australian gun laws, and driving laws.
I'll let you know how I progress with that.

I'm in no position to offer any advice on
how elderly ladies should defend themselves
until I complete my education.

With that in mind -
I wish you all the best in finding
answers from a more suitable expert on the questions
you're after. There's quite a few of them on this
thread who'd be more than happy to give you advice.

Good Luck.

Cheers.

It seems to me that "elderly ladies" have always relied on their immediate community to offer them protection.

The same as the very young.

We'd be better off to examine the way we construct our communities in the modern industrial world - than just saying to aunt Edna, "You're on yer own, old girl. But here's a gun if you need it."

Dear Foxy,

I agree that you are in no position to offer advice, but offer it you did:

"Of course I am not against any person's right to
defend themselves when attacked. That's why I did
suggest that women get the proper training from an
early age."

Proper training? Expand, please.

You also, by reference, offered advice on using illegal spray as a means of defence.

But it's not your advice that I asked for but your OPINION on what means of defence can be used against would be rapists.

What could Anita Cobby have used that would have given her a chance against the five men that raped, tortured, mutilated and murdered her?

She was still alive during a significant part, if not all, of the mutilation.

No advice just an OPINION!

I return to openly say well said to Paul foxy and Poirot.
Best not be baited be wise in this case we can bank on being smarter than the angler.
Y et the words about community are worth a look, not hard to put in place in the bush, events like bush fire or flood bring us together.
It is a shame it take that to break the ice but once done good things come.

Dear Is Mise,

My opinion has been clearly stated on this thread.
Go back and re-read it.

As for sprays? Go back and re-read what I actually
did say and what the cited link I gave stated.

I have nothing further to add.

Cheers.

I return to openly say well said to Paul foxy and Poirot.
Best not be baited be wise in this case we can bank on being smarter than the angler.
Y et the words about community are worth a look, not hard to put in place in the bush, events like bush fire or flood bring us together.
It is a shame it take that to break the ice but once done good things come.
Noticed from the Catholic Church inquiry today a woman victim of a Preast told her mum.
Who told her she was a lier.
Later wanting a Child baptized in that Church,that preast told her *we do not baptize B*rst*rds*
We have a long way to go to even approach being truly human.

Dear Belly,

Remember when I first joined this forum?
You were the first poster I wanted to hug.
Well over these years, my respect for you
has only grown and if I could I'd hug you
right now!

>>Proper training? Expand, please.<<

Training that gives them the sills required to avoid being attacked.

>>What could Anita Cobby have used that would have given her a chance against the five men that raped, tortured, mutilated and murdered her?<<

A stout stick.

A mace.

A morning-star.

An axe.

A sword.

A spear.

A knife.

A scythe.

A pitchfork.

A kusarigama.

Nunchaku.

Tonfas.

A chainsaw.

A lightsabre.*

A phaser.*

A taser.

A firearm.

Greek fire.

A flamethrower.

A hand grenade.

A thermonuclear device.**

A half-brick in a sock.

And that's not an exhaustive list.

Cheers,

Tony

* A joke: these weapons only exist in fiction.

** Also a joke: using a thermonuclear device against attackers in close quarters is a recipe for MAD.

Dear Tony,

Thanks for your superb list, wit, and humour.

However after giving it some "serious" thought...

I think the best defence of all would be
releasing one's bowels. This should not be
difficult when one's frightened. And unless
the perpetrator is a psychopath - it would
be the best deterrant especially in the case
of rape.

Glad that you can see the funny side of the rape, torture, mutilation and murder of Anita Cobby.

Pray give us a laugh about Jill Meagher and Jannine Balding or maybe you have a special funny spot for Ebony Simpson, only nine when she was abducted, raped and murdered.

Then there were 14-year-old Lauren Margaret Barry and 16-year-old Nichole Emma Collins, they should be worth your witty attention.

See: < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Janine_Balding > and follow the links for the others.

Is Mise, I can see you are getting hysterical now.

My advice to you is to check the stats on crime of all sorts in the US, and tell us why it hasn't abated, since apparently over 2 thirds of Americans (a very conservative number I would suggest) are armed with their own guns?

Why would arming more Aussies with their own guns ( even young and old women) lessen the violence against them here, when it hasn't in the US?
Apparently, the bulk of the violence committed in the US is not by strangers, but by people known to the victims.

How then is it more preferable for all of us to be armed in our own homes?
If uncle Bill or Auntie Jo annoys us too much, isn't it just too easy to reach for the gun sitting beside us on the couch and blow them away?

Dear Is Mise,

With our tongues lodged firmly in our cheeks
an attempt is being made to take the "mickey" out
of posters who try to push their opinions onto
others regarding guns. Nothing to do with rape
or the victims - which we all take very seriously.

No one with a smidgin of feeling for rape victims would ever make a joke of rape.
Those of you who have or those who find mirth in the contemplation of the almost unimaginable mutilation of Anita Cobby might read the police evidence of what was done to her; then have a good chuckle.
You could also contemplate the last moments of some of these victims, particularly the ones with their throats slashed.

One wonders sometimes why our society is becoming callous, one does not need to look beyond those that find any mirth in rape.

>>No one with a smidgin of feeling for rape victims would ever make a joke of rape.<<

No one has.

A few people have taken the mickey out of your idea that giving every woman a sidearm will somehow magically prevent sexual violence. But they haven't had to go to much effort: some ideas take the mickey out of themselves.

Cheers,

Tony

Suseonline, "Apparently, the bulk of the violence committed in the US is not by strangers, but by people known to the victims."

Once again you imply that gun violence is evenly distributed across all of the US population and specifically those good citizens with firearms licences.

The lie is important to your sledging by insinuation of licensed firearms owners in Australia as 'gun toting red necks' and criminals, and your demand for bans. However it is the very opposite of the truth on both counts as you well know. Your are truly offensive lies of breathtaking proportions.

Just to repeat an inconvenient truth for you, Foxy and others yet again, gun violence in the US is predominately young black on black, and invariably associated with black gangs in slums and drugs.

Moving to Australia, the shootings on the Gold Coast, in Sydney, Melbourne and elsewhere are by OMG bikies fighting over drug trafficking territory. Police also comment on the ethnic, gang nature and recruiting of OMGs, with many of the gang members not even being able to ride a motorcycle and having no interest in doing so either.

These are the facts that dispel your slandering of the thousands of law-abiding firearms licensed Aussie citizens,

http://www.crimecommission.gov.au/publications/crime-profile-series/outlaw-motorcycle-gangs

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-16/qlds-tough-anti-bikie-laws-passed-after-marathon-parliament-/5025242

Is it only by coincidence that arguments used by the Left (and Greens) in defending the OMGs and opposing laws aimed at putting a brake on organised crime bear a striking resemblance to the arguments put up by OMGs themselves?

It is true isn't it that the Left and the lunar Greens are soft on criminals, for instance they regard any finding against ethnic gangs such as the Calabrian mafia as 'racist' and worse, and hinder action by authorities to pass laws and take action to control these noxious gangs?

This is what you and others here protect,
http://tinyurl.com/bikie-nation

And remember:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4_B1AANiXs0/TempilRY3oI/AAAAAAAAAak/FIWiltgVIss/s1600/trolls-kitten.jpg

Cheers,

Tony

OMG bikies embrace multiculturalism,

Criminal bikie gangs boost numbers with young Muslim and Eastern European recruits
http://tinyurl.com/OMGs-multicultural

OMG onthebeach embraces hysteria!

"These are the facts that dispel your slandering of the thousands of law-abiding firearms licensed Aussie citizens,"

"...slandering..."

Yer at it again - twisting and distorting the arguments of others.

Very cheaty.

What a load of cobblers.....

Not my words Poirota nd one assumes the informed sources to be police. Kindly read the linked report before indulging yourself,

<GOLD Coast bikie gangs are actively targeting hot-blooded young Muslim and Eastern European men as they seek to beef up their ranks with aggressive ethnic recruits.

Sources say gangs such as the Bandidos are embracing multiculturalism, signing up Lebanese, Turkish and Balkan members, many from Sydney and Melbourne.

The trend mirrors the early stages of the rise of crime gangs in southern states who recruited from ethnic groups, sources say.
..>

Again, here is the link,

Criminal bikie gangs boost numbers with young Muslim and Eastern European recruits
http://tinyurl.com/OMGs-multicultural

Well if you want to play the race card OTB, then how will bringing more guns into the country and arming the populace, like they do in the US, help with the violence here?

In fact, how has every man and his dog being armed like an army in the US, helped keep down the violence, whether caused by 'blacks' or not?

Are you suggesting very few white people are murdered by guns in the US?
Do you have stats for that?
In any case a murder is a murder, no matter what colour the person is.

Suseonline, "Do you have stats for that?"

You are a classic, aren't you Suseonline? You get to allege whatever wild claims you like and never provide any evidence to support your own views. But you demand that anyone who challenges you has to provide voluminous evidence. However, no matter what the evidence, and lots of it from different sources has been put to you on previous occasions, you constantly find ways to dismiss it and bounce up again later asking for more.

Here again, this time from The American Journal of Medicine,

<Mortality from Homicide among Young Black Men: A New American Tragedy
[published online 17 January 2013]

In 2012, an American tragedy of far greater urgency and public health importance is the alarming rate of homicide among young black men. Interracial homicide, whether the victim or the perpetrator is black, is abhorrent. Nonetheless, from the perspective of the health of the general public, the circumstances in which a young black man is both the victim and the perpetrator cause far more premature deaths.

Homicide is, far and away, the leading cause of death of young black men. In stark contrast, accidents are, far and away, the leading cause of death among young non-black men and women of all races and ethnicities. Black men are 6 times more likely to die as the result of and 7 times more likely to commit murder than their white counterparts. One eighth of the population is black, but one half of all homicide victims are black.>

http://tinyurl.com/me59xsm

Police reports show that these are offenders without licences using illegally obtained illegal guns to commit serious illegal offences. Police reports confirm that gangs and drugs are involved.

Suseonline, "Well if you want to play the race card OTB"

No I am not. Read the article and attack it with your opposing facts if you have them.

OTB, you are missing the point.

If gun laws were tougher and guns weren't so readily available in the US, then there would logically be far less gun related crimes amongst ANY group.

If this were not the case, then why are so many Americans so passionate about their 'right to bear arms', and the equally passionate anti-gun campaigners?

I don't care what sites you have found for me to read, I can see what is happening and I don't want it to happen in Australia...and it won't.

Releasing ones bowels?
Interesting one poster here has me in training for that defense mode.
The though than having a gun to defend yourself leaves questions to answer.
Would that now grown woman have best handled her assault by shooting the Preast?
The early release, stalled by good common sense, may not have been needed if one of his victims killed him.
We know the odds say he would have taken the gun,at the point of his gun, and murdered some.
Elderly lady,s grasping desperately and bravely at their purse could drop it and shoot the snatcher, unless it was the gun he snatched.

Suseonline,

What needs to happen in the US is to stop gang membership at the start, when children are young.

It is obvious we need to do that in Oz as well.

Do this,

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/preventgangmembership/index.html

To stop this,

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/bikie-dads-breeding-new-generation-of-bad-boys/story-fnihsrf2-1226738938629

and this,

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/bikie-war-hits-bra-boys-turf/story-e6freuy9-1225966013690

OTB, the problems in America are way too entrenched to fix now...the horse has well and truly bolted.
As far as Australia is concerned, we need to tighten up the gun laws even further because I doubt anything else will help.

Racism and discrimination are figments of a nanny society bent on the growth of minority influence in community affairs.
It is a very strange world we live in where I cannot say I hate someone or some group because, to me, they stink or are repugnant or are a particular religion or creed or color especially when what I say or see is fact.
Half these religion and many of their adherents simply want me dead because I am an infidel, whatever that means but I don't see the police battering their doors down and charging them with race crimes.
I am not a racist in the true sense of the word but I live my life with race high on the radar of danger.
I only discriminate when it is to my economic advantage.

Chris Gaff I think I see your direction and in my own way agree, only because you told us the place you served as a cop and I know well the abuse you would have faced.
Now many will not like my view, as they will not like yours, the last line seemed more like fishing than fact.
But I always was out to enjoy life and once lived and played in Sydney's west, not hold your horses gay, or even happy.
So a Saturday or Sunday could end up at the cross or George street.
Not now blind seething mindless hate, not from all but far too many says stay away.
Worth noting our near north Islands give us as many problem children as what I think is your target.
Can any one tell me,why PC? why is it demanded that we treat some better than they treat us.

Suseonline,

I 'get' that you would always want 'further tightening' without knowing or even caring what restrictions are already in place and their levels of effectiveness and efficiency. Your goal is to ban the private legal ownership of firearms and possession of legal, registered firearms.

After all, unlicensed possession and use of firearms has always been illegal. Likewise the firearms licence, which is the strong, robust control, has been in existence for donkeys years.

I really don't see any worth at all in punishing honest respectable citizens for crimes they don't commit themselves, don't have any part in and are obviously very opposed to as well. I would like to be assured though that their critics are as law-abiding and of good character as the firearms licensed citizens have been certified to be.

There are thousands of people who are buying recreational drugs and directly supporting drug gangs and indirectly their violence and crime. Those people who buy and consume illicit drugs sure aren't the citizens with firearms licences and there are very obvious and compelling reasons why not.

>>Those people who buy and consume illicit drugs sure aren't the citizens with firearms licences and there are very obvious and compelling reasons why not.<<

Those people who buy and consume illicit drugs are anonymous to the law unless they get caught. Illicit drug users buy their drugs outside of the law and the only register of illicit drug use - the list of criminals who have been tried and convicted of illicit drug use - represents only the tip of the iceberg of illicit drug users.

We simply don't know how many firearms licensees purchase and use illicit drugs. There is no reliable method to obtain the statistics so as far as we know they're all up to their eyeballs in coke.

But it doesn't seem likely. Frankly, I'm a lot more concerned about the combination of firearms and a legal mind-altering drug: alcohol is well known for increasing aggression and reducing impulse control. It's also part of the Australian culture; we drink more heavily than USAdians. I don't think booze and guns make for good bedfellows and I'd have very serious reserves about any relaxation of gun laws until I stop hearing regular reports about glassing: if we can't trust people to understand that glasses are for drinking out of and not committing GBH how can we trust them with a sidearm?

Cheers,

Tony

Tony Lavis,

You display a woeful lack of knowledge of the Weapons Acts and regulations concerning firearms.

It is not my job to educate you. Suffice it to say however that the licensing involves police checks of character and records held by police and others. The Police Commissioner has considerable leeway and discretion to prevent the issuing or holding of a licence. Any conviction or implied drug use or dealing would not see a licence issued. All criminal offences are considered, not just relating to drugs.

As well, there is a very broad scope for a licence to be taken away and even an unfair and unsupported allegation can easily result in expensive and likely treasured firearms being confiscated along with the licence. The onus of proof is reversed.

That would be similar to you having police arrive on your doorstep to confiscate your motor vehicle/s and drivers licence on suspicion or an allegation without requiring any decision by a court to do so, and putting the reverse onus of proof on you to show cause why you should get them back......in time and after you have instigated expensive court proceedings if it was a firearm. You get none of that money back either.

I will leave it at that, which should satisfy the fair and open-minded or at least encourage further research if they wanted. However it does suggest that it is very unlikely that the law-abiding good citizens who have satisfied the conditions for a licence would use drugs and if they did they would very soon be without the said licence.

It shouldn't be forgotten either that the citizen with the firearms licence is in effect always on trail and on top of that has to regularly go back through the full application process. You wouldn't accept that where you car licence is concerned though, would you?

A hoplophobe, someone irrationally prejudiced against ordinary respectable law-abiding citizens lawfully possessing and using firearms, would always find a way to quibble. S/he would never be satisfied with anything short of a complete ban. Totalitarianism which most people would reject.

One poster works over time to show us his self confidence is an over estimation on his part.
At some point this thread was high jacked by the gun nuts.
Using the silly superstitioun if more victims had guns more would ? what not be raped?
Along the way scattering accusations at most for thoughts we do not have but he made up, that poster now takes on another.
Tony Lavis is the target, but how many missed it? the yet again putting his thoughts feeble as they are in another's mouth.
Then offering to educate!
Few if any single one of us do not know the current gun laws in this country.
In fact unless I am quite mad the debate was based around his and another wish to loosen it up.
While the never do that team said no.
Well done however
! for turning a debate against a crime like rape to your hobby horse , the horse seems to want to carry you in to verbal confrontation in every thread with almost every one.

Belly,

I am not the enemy, those who spin lies are.

John Howard covered up what could have been a cruel outcome of selling off the excellent Commonwealth mental health and rehabilitation services and he won a windfall election as a result.

That doesn't excuse the mongrel who committed the dreadful crime. But had he been in one of the previous Commonwealth institutions or occupied in a sheltered workshop (all sold off), the dreadful event may never have happened. That is not to lay blame at Howard either, the offender chose and made fiendish plans to accomplish his ends.

What is interesting though is that John Howard most likely claimed credit for an idea, albeit flawed, that very likely wasn't his own in the first place. There are those close to Howard who say that it was always his wife Janette's idea, not his own. Howard himself admitted as much in unguarded moments -that it was not something he had first thought of, but he had become convinced of. Those burning ears!

His whole Cabinet were opposed because the 'gun control' was not directed at the cause and offered no solutions to gun crime. Howard was resolute, he had his own kitchen cabinet to contend with at home and steering him. Janine made Howard. Janine was the steely strategic thinker, the astute Machiavelli intimately involved in all of his decisions. Later, the LNP like all political parties is obliged to maintain the image and myth to protect its icon.

Lies once repeated can easily become the truth. John Howard struts his 'gun control', which in itself is all spin, a mountain of ineffective, bureaucratic paper that wastes police time monitoring law abiding citizens much to the delight of offenders, and he also basks in the 'Man of Steel' tag given by George Bush. But what if it was actually the woman of steel behind, Janine, whose 'gun control' got up and possibly who also deserved Bush's praise for compliance with his plans too.

Here is an article by a journalist who could see behind the spin,

http://www.virginiahaussegger.com.au/column_details.php?id=58

I referred to 'Janette' on one occasion whereas Janine was correct.

The correction is a good opportunity to post a quote that seems apt when discussing the claimed but unproved 'success' of Australia's gun control,

"When it comes to controlling human beings there is no better instrument than lies. Because, you see, humans live by beliefs. And beliefs can be manipulated. The power to manipulate beliefs is the only thing that counts."
Michael Ende, The Neverending Story

OTB some thing within me wants to let you down softly.
I am no bully, believe me with some truly truculent posters I have, again and again dishonored my promise to ignore them.
Every one has a reason to come here, GY must have noted it is near therapy for some if not most of us.
Some need to be heard.
I too want to express my views and yes learn from other posters.
I have learned a great deal right here.
I have witnessed very bright Liberal posters, and the same with Labor.
Our personality do not always translate in print.
Our facial expressions from that sly grin as we jokingly prod one an other, our snarl too may not come across.
I have as I said grown here, but posted in two other forums over 5.000 posts.
Boy have I learned to be better along the way, I was once just a head kicking loud mouth in a page set up student.
You come across as anti woman, anti to a fault Labor and anti any thoughts not your own.
You mate over value your thoughts and greatly devalue others.
IF WE ALL IN LIFE CONFRONTED THE OTHER SIDE AS YOU DO WE WOULD BE IN A NEVER ENDING CIVIL WAR.
I offer my true opinion not a taunt we all should understand we cannot judge others without being judged, and that is how it should be.

That is your swamp Belly. I will not join you in it.
Have a good day.

Afraid OTB if I never post another word to or about you, your self made quicksand pit will continue to haunt you.
You are aware I am very far from your only critic.
You have been here not more than over night in compassion to most you *talk down to*
And you serve up tripe then in the discussion about upgrading the site, seem to ask for special protection, for your self!
You indeed are an extraordinary bloke, not how ever said as a complement.

One of my recommendations for avoiding rape.

< https://www.google.com.au/#q=colt+32+detective+special >

Try that again

https://www.google.com.au/#q=colt+32+detective+special

Is Mise,
It arrived 4 days ago
Glock 0.5 will stop any rapist and his car as well

The pro gun posts here are so extreme I think we are having our legs pulled.
My childhood was one linked to guns in most rooms.
Even the 410 for mum to make war on snakes.
And with my teenage years trips to rabbit country with serving soldiers from Ingleburn for weekends in the snow.
That was mostly time in the country , my childhood was in any case.
It was not hard to buy a gun, or to find a roadside sign shot to death by *mugs posing as sports men*
Too cattle on the road side any thing that moved.
Today the guns have gone, it is not the case for many, roadside signs on bends, that see the bullets line of travel return to cross the road, are legendary truths here.
I was part of a team of mates that constantly demanded of each other *safety first* we checked each other to see no one climbed a fence gun in hand.
One fired a shot at a duck, over a dam, I was and he knew it! standing on the other side.
Guns are not safe in some hands surely that is clear.
And of the hundreds of thousands of tragic but true story's we can tell about death and guns in America.
I pick the resent murder of an Australian base ball player by bored youths who put it on facebook! as evidence we need to keep our current gun laws.

Belly;
One of my brothers (dwarfed) was shot and killed by a 22 short fired by another brother (not known) when he got in front of the line whilst rabbiting out the back of Mittagong.
He was one of 13 siblings (Irish Catholics)
My father did not remove the guns from the house.
He grieved but he knew it was a stupid accident that could have been prevented if Stan had have listened to the rules.

Now this is stunning.
My mum was born in Bargo, Dad in Bowral 16 kids from Yass to Yandera.
And I shot rabbits around the back of Mittagong.
My Dad would have taken every gun away, with my help.
Guns do not kill but idiots holding them do.

Belly,

I share your concern at the number of deaths but you might be able to target one of the worst killers.

Gun deaths in Australia for 2010 (all categories) 236.
Estimated number of firearms in civilian hands 3,500,000.
Ref: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia

Number of deaths 6.7/100,000 firearms, but far less for registered firearms and firearm licence holders.

Motor vehicle deaths, for 2010 (all categories) 1,362. mostly by licenced drivers.
Number of motor vehicle fatalities per 100,000 vehicles. 8.4 (mostly registered vehicles).
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_Australia_by_year

On the face of it it would seem that people with cars are more of a danger than people with guns, not that this has got anything to do with condoning the rape and the coddling of rapists by denying potential victims the most effective means of protecting themselves.

Belly, Be worried right now. Bargo Yandera all under fire siege right now. Could lose a couple of those towns.
Caught rabbits by hand out the back of Mittagong there were that many, Rabbit stew was a staple along with blackberries and Chokos.
I went to school at the Mittagong South school on the Old South Road.
My great grand parents had a Cob & Co wayside change station and pub just back from the Diamond Fields road. Grandma had and affair as a young girl with "Captain Starlight" hung and buried in the cemetery next to the school.
Great place to live except for the cold. I had two shops, an interest in the Empire Theatre and a wood-works factory there at different times as well as policing the district in the Belanglo crap.

Chris,

I also hunted in the Mittagong area a lot, had very good friends with properties there.
One property was in the valley to the west of Hilltop and the other was out along the Wombeyan Caves Road.
My best mate was from the Caves Rd one and his wife was from the valley.
He did the courting by riding across on horseback, he was keen!

He is buried in the little private cemetery near the Grid power lines in the valley. you probably know the spot.

Mise,
Do you mean the along the Wombeyan Caves Road in St Thomas church yard or Joadja Valley where the old retorts are.
I had the worst property out on Joadja Road, even the goats hated it. I sold it to a Sydney yuppie for 5 times its value and moved to Burradoo.

chrisgaff1000, "I had the worst property out on Joadja Road, even the goats hated it. I sold it to a Sydney yuppie for 5 times its value"

LOL

Mate commenting on the section of 'secluded, natural, strewn with granite boulders, gnarled eucalyptus and views to valley' property his REA off-loaded for him: "They will have to take some snakes to keep them company".

Chris,

No, he's buried in a small private cemetery that is on/near the former Blatch property down in the valley to the west of Hilltop, I think that the road out to there is the Colo Rd.
The Grid power line passes almost over the graves.

OTB,

You obviously know the country well!

"I sold it to a Sydney yuppie for 5 times its value" Beach,in your mind you think you ripped someone off. That must make you fell all warm and fuzzy.

onthebeach,
Honestly it was the worst property in Aussie except it had a designer 3 bed house that looked out on the 'secluded, natural, strewn with granite boulders, gnarled eucalyptus'.
Nothing would grow, our horses stayed round the house because the wombats had holed the area so bad and even the feral cats pissed off because there was nothing to kill. There was the daily visit from a few disheartened crows and wedge T Eagles and the termited migrated years ago.
The guy who bought it said the place was just what he was looking for so the REA lowered the price by a hundred large to seal the deal and the idiot brought a mag of Moet to show his appreciation.
He indicated he was going to farm alpacas and grow olives.
I drank his bubbly and went sailing off into the wind.