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.