Hunting has been an Australian activity since the year dot. And in our earlier days a necessity. But today, except for the control of vermin, and the eradication or feral animals, hardly a necessity ? Yet many call it a bona fide (justifiable) sport, some claim they add their kill(s) to the pot, both for human consumption and to feed their domestic or working animals.

To those who assert Hunting as an authentic, legitimate sport, I would respectfully offer this proposition -

'...Hunting is the only sport where your competition doesn't know they're playing...' ? So if we were to accept that premiss, this statement must also have an appreciable degree of legitimacy as well ?

Therefore what does a hunter 'acquire' from killing an animal ? Taking a 'roo at 150 yards with say a .270W or similar ? Or dropping a 'roo at 45 yards with a re-curve perhaps ? The challenge of a good clean shot (particularly with the bow!), or is it something much deeper, a more worrying, psychologically pathology perhaps, laying quiescently deep within us perhaps ? The sense of possessing the ultimate power of life or death ? Within the small index range of; 2 1/2 to 4 lbs of backward pressure of one's index finger ?

Please, don't go for my jugular, though never a hunter, I enjoy the engineering of firearms, but I no longer have one. It's merely a question, nothing more ? One small consideration though; during the 'great' gun buy-back days, trying to diplomatically remove a F/A from a perfectly reasonable, and legal shooter, because technically his F/A was no longer 'legal' on technical grounds, was like trying to pull teeth without anaesthetic. Notwithstanding they're well compensated for it ! Most would have gladly forfeited their wives in lieu, before surrendering their beloved gun !

Dear O Sung Wu,

For most of us, hunting is immoral.

But is this the topic? Are you here to listen to me preaching morality?

No, the topic is that the government of Australia, an immoral body to the core, is pretending to offer moral guidance and enforce its idea of morality on us.

I do not advocate hunting, in fact I abhor it, but one can only increase in moral merit when they have before them the choice between good and evil - and then freely choose the good over the evil. However, when evil, due to legislation, is no longer an option - nor is goodness and righteousness!

o sung wu,

So I take it you also oppose indigenous hunting?

Regarding 'morals', do you regard it as a higher morality to have someone else raise animals and slaughter them for your consumption?

You want to be careful siding with those who believe they ought to be able to tell others how to live their lives. It is likely that many of them might also decide that the care and keep, life too, of a mature white gent is not worth supporting. Hardly a necessity they might say and in the blink of an eye it is green dream for you too. So they can take that underused house and other assets that the 'more deserving' ought have (but were unwilling to work and save for).

Anything can be defined as 'hardly a necessity' and that is where totalitarianism takes over. We were watching a TV program tonight where snooker was banned overnight by a regime. Snooker was 'hardly a necessity' I suppose.

Freedom is about letting others lead their lives and being responsible for your own choices.

O sung Wu, you know you are asking for trouble with this topic : )
I think everyone on this forum knows I hate firearms being in the hands of anyone besides police, military and farmers.

It is a well known fact that people who end up as murderers and serial killers often start their love of killing by torturing and/or killing animals first..... usually from childhood.

So, I don't think it is a big stretch to say that guns could be used just as easily to kill others, or the owner themselves, in a fit of depression or rage?

I don't believe shooting should be an Olympic sport, or indeed any form of sport.
Thank goodness Australia has such careful gun laws.
They could still tighten the laws more though.

Suseonline,

There is treatment available for hoplophobia.

http://www.phobiasource.com/hoplophobia-fear-of-firearms/

Catastrophysing, see here,

http://psychcentral.com/lib/what-is-catastrophizing/0001276

Being consistently irrational and alarmist? Well this is more aimed at helping others to deal with you,

http://dev3.cepr.org/meets/wkcn/3/3503/Papers/Baumeister.pdf

Best leave the authoritarianism for another day.

Garbage Suse, if we had not been a nation of shooters, the japs would have walked straight through Kokoda, & into Oz. With todays laws, & bleeding heart attitude, we could not raise a militia capable of defending us for even 10 minutes.

I have no problem with a someone who is a vegetarian, because they don't want anything killed for their food, but like onthebeach I can have no respect for those who want someone else to raise & slaughter their food for them, but refuse to do it for themselves. Such false ethics.

Even more I despise people who can throw a fish into a boat to suffocate slowly, but have the hide to complain when someone makes a clean instantaneous kill on a dear. Why does Bambi attract more sympathy than Nemo?

I don't believe in going around blasting things. I had a shotgun that I could boast had never fired a shot, without supplying something to eat. Sometimes It might only have been a stork of Coconuts, shot down because the palm was too hard to climb, & sometimes I was shooting one of the locals pigs that had escaped, but always food.

We ate a lot of rabbit in the early 50s, & there was no sense paying someone else to hunt them, when you could do it yourself.

I knew people who only survived the depression by use of a rifle & fish trap. They ate rabbit, kangaroo fish & crabs. It says a lot about our society that neither are legal today.

I bought 50 rounds for my rifle dozen years back, when we had a feral dog problem. I had to as we are not allowed to turn our dogs loose. I shot 3 in 5 nights, & they have not come back. I had best buy some new ammunition, the 47 not used are getting a bit old.

So o sung wu, I'm in favour of hunting, for those who want to.

Beach, you are calling it a "green dream", to dispose of a "mature white gent" for the expressed purpose of "taking that underused house and other assets (of that mature white gent) that the 'more deserving' ought have" I would call it more your fascists goal, than any kind of "green dream"!

Suse I totally agree with you, but as expected the 'Authoritarian Nazi' does not, and the resident 'Daniel Boone', who is living 70 years in the past calls it "garbage". What you say is absolutely reasonable and true.

Hasbeen, certainly the home gun was handy back in the good old days, but we don't need it now to provide us with food.

As I said, the military need guns, no question about that, so I don't know why you are raving on about the good ol days of the Second World War?

In any case, there were thousands of very damaged people, both physically and mentally, from that war, so we don't want to glamorize those days too much.

We don't need guns in suburbia.

To any of those who warn me of taking sides or to be careful who I side with....well bring it on !

I'll NEVER EVER run from a stink, OK it's simply not in my DNA !

It was once said the key to keeping the people of Rome content , during the Roman empire , was to provide " bread and circuses" .
In the US Empire , that has been nuanced to "bread , circuses and war" . Because nothing so stimulates the US psyche as a war where the opponent can be characterised as 'evil' and a 'threat' requiring national unity behind decision makers who are acting for interests other than the people who elected them .
Power is as addictive as crack cocaine and the 'habit' is gnawing at the minds of those who can see their power threatened by emerging or resurgent societies . And if the methods of Empires to retain their power seem insane , it is because they are . As insane as a drug addicted mugger on a main street in broad daylight . The adverse , self destructive consequences of their actions are less important than the fast ego 'fix' they get from the temporary proceeds .
Patient China will keep giving them enough rope to hang themselves , while the US takes pride in the strength of the slip knot they are fashioning for themselves .

o sung wu,

Why do you slander the sport and recreation of these young Aussies, maligning them too in the process?

http://www.shootingaustralia.org/index.php

It is a totally non-discriminatory sport too and always has been.

http://www.tra.org.au/TRA%20BROCHURE%20ver%204_6Mar2014.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdst7Q6dlwQ
- Emma Cox who recently won a silver medal at the world championships.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-16/australia27s-emma-cox-wins-silver-at-shooting-world-championsh/5745966

There are thousands of respectable, law-abiding citizens who by their nature live the impeccably honest lives to obtain and hold a firearms licence.

These are the people who are regularly abused by scurrilous elements like the NSW 'Watermelon' (read as Trotskyist) Greens, who deliberately and foully conflate these many thousands of fine upstanding taxpaying citizens with the criminals that perversely the Greens strongly support (anything to get a few votes it appears).

As far as the Greens are concerned, criminals have rights that the Greens deny to the ordinary working citizens who are forced to stump up the $1million plus it takes to keep a non-productive Greens senator, and that is not including the decades of swinging from the taxpayer's teat in retirement. The NSW Watermelon Greens are the fruit cakes who picketed a common shopkeeper - their ratbag protest for a trade embargo against the onle effective democracy in the Middle East. See here,
http://tinyurl.com/chocolate-picket

Absolutely love it, otb!

"Freedom is about letting others lead their lives and being responsible for your own choices."

You take out this week's prize for blatant hypocrisy on this forum.

Why...you've just spent many posts attempting to demonise me for having the temerity to use my "freedoms" to home educate my son.

Lol!

It cannot always be about you, Poirot and that is a load of rot.

BTT

Dear O Sung Wu,

Guns will always remain a controversial
issue. One reason is the persistent belief that,
since criminals have guns, law-abiding people
need them for self-protection. Actually, gun-owning
households are much more likely to suffer fatalities
from their own weapons that from those of outsiders.
Studies have found that only a very small percentage
of all slayings in gun-owning households were for
self-protection; the remainder were suicides, homicides,
or accidental deaths, almost all involving family
members, friends, or acquaintances.

Then of course another reason for the wish to own guns
is the belief, deeply held by some people that gun
ownership is an individual right. As we know, for
granting this liberty to the individual, American
society pays the price in the deviance of those who
abuse it.

As far as hunting goes?
I don't have a problem as this activity is regulated and
controlled.

Hi there YUYUTSU...

You've posed an awkward question there, raising the morality of hunting per se ? No I don't consider hunting is immoral, nor do I believe the possession of F/A'S is immoral or unethical either. What I do worry about, is the psychological impact that F/A's can have on 'SOME' individuals ?

Any inquiry I've been involved in, where a F/A is in question, whether legal or illegal, some people get very unsettled or agitated if there's the slightest suggestion it may be seized, or confiscated ? It should be stated herein, just because a copper may exercise 'a power' and seize a F/A doesn't mean the owner has lost it for all time ? The owner need only apply to the Courts to have that F/A returned to him, simple as that ?

No it's not that so much; YUYUTSU, it's as if by removing that weapon, you're removing his entire life's possessions ! And even a perfectly normal, reasonable, and law-abiding individual can become very very aggressive even violent, all over a bloody gun for goodness sake ! And I just don't get it, I really don't ?

Do I believe F/A's can sometimes cause trouble...unquestionably yes ! Should F/A's be banned because of it...absolutely not ! Should F/A's be regulated...it's useful, but not vital....Should F/A users or owners be licenced and carefully probed...Absolutely, without doubt !

My biggest worry has always been, individuals with 'undiagnosed' psychological issues or illnesses ? Issues of 'rage'; issues of 'violent tendencies'; and issues of a 'low frustration tolerance' ? All these Psych. conditions should be made known, to licencing authorities.

I can't possibly recount the number of people I've had to deal with, who've exhibited some or all of these worrying symptoms ? Thankfully only a few, have had access to F/A's, all of which could've become a potentially lethal situation ?

A couple of stories on the psychology of hunters.

I live in rural NSW, used to work for a government agency. One way of getting on-side with land-owners was to empathise with their problems.

1. Visited a property in the Riverina, and the issue of hunters came up. The landholder was deeply critical of pig-shooters who came onto the property without permission. Well, I said, maybe there's a silver lining - at least they get rid of some of the pests. It would be OK if that was all the did! he said. But I keep pigs and they can't tell the difference between feral and domesticated ones. Maybe hard to tell at a distance? I asked. He replied: No excuse - they even shot my prize sow, in the pigsty!

2. Once I hit a pig. It was small, and the 4WD rolled over it, with no damage to the vehicle. I pulled the dead pig off to the side of the road and left it there. A couple of days later I drove past, and was puzzled to see the pig was now on the opposite side the road to where I'd left it. When I got to my destination, a few km further, I commented that the dead pig I'd hit had moved across the road. Oh, said the guy I was talking to, you hit that pig? I saw some shooters photographing themselves posing with it - I assumed they'd shot it and I gave them an earful. We concluded that they had moved the pig so that the background looked more bushy and natural for the photos - the side I'd left it on had structures and levees.

What does it say about hunters? Shooting a pig in a pigsty, and taking selfies with roadkill?

My 'favourite' hunting magazine -http://www.sportingshootermag.com.au/bacon-busters. Nuff said!

o sung wu,

Good Lord man, you would never sleep if you thought about the pyrotechnic possibilities of ordinary pool chemicals, for instance.

Please do not slip into the maudlin catastrophysing that inflicts some older men and makes them into the stereotypical old women of jokes. I am sure that stereotype of older women is rarely the case anyhow, especially where practical country women are concerned.

You should be aware that gun crime (accidents too) has always been very low in Australia and was continuing the downward trend before and after Howard. So the cool $billion from taxpayers' was wasted - unless like Howard you believe it was worth a cool million to get him re-elected. What if Howard had put that money into infrastructure, eg hospital facilities, water storage, or some railway lines?

What about a good clean discussion where the many thousands of very normal, respectable and law-abiding citizens (and duly certified so) are not being put into the same basket as the 'scrotes' who couldn't qualify for a licence and wouldn't be seeking to obey laws anyhow?

Now, just talking about the duly licensed firearms owners, you should be aware of the various character and other tests? You should be aware too that citizens with such impeccable records are the very last people you should be slagging by insinuation.

Not referring to you, but from some of the 'unusual' posts seen on this site, there are some who would never in this lifetime be considered for a firearms licence. Just think though, they very likely possess a drivers licence, which provides the mobility, concealment, anonymity and safe get-away, that are the priorities for anti-social and criminal activities.

If police and legislators really, truly want to reduce and detect crime, what about character tests and lack of criminal record for motor licences? There is good evidence to support such an initiative. For example, when steering wheel locks were made compulsory on cars there was a lasting drop in serious crime and that was outside of the obvious instance of car theft.

G'day there SUSEONLINE...

Much of what you say is correct. Borne out by crime figures. Fortunately, it's the crooks that do the most damage with guns, rather than licenced shooters.

I personally don't like hunting. I see no need for it. A couple of my long standing friends (all ex. now retired coppers) are avid hunters, with one of 'em, keen on Ducks (shotgun) and vermin 'grunters' (centre-fires). And whenever his wife allows him, up to the NT, he'd take his, big .458 Ruger Tropical S.S. seeking out Buffalo ? The same bloke, left the 'Prang Gang' (Accident Invest. Squad) because he couldn't stomach doing Fatals, day in and out ? His great love of hunting, or guns for that matter, didn't mean he was a raving psycho or weird in some perverse way ?

Nevertheless myself, I'm no hunter ! But I do enjoy the engineering features of a well designed and well mfg'd. F/A. I thoroughly enjoy punching holes in paper too, both with HG's and rifles, not to mention my beloved 870P, which we're no longer permitted to possess, thanks to a particular 'looney tune' now a resident in Risden Prison, in Hobart Town ?

Concerning your issues of Shooting in the Olympics, well that particular discipline has been around as long as the Olympics themselves. Not only your traditional free pistol and rifle (precision shooting), many involving the fairer sex too, but other cross country (in snow) where a F/A is carried and used as part of the event. Sorry, I have to disagree with you on the Olympics issue unfortunately SUSEONLINE.

FOXY...

As you say the consider F/A ownership a 'right' ? One of their amendments concerning 'the right to bear arms'. However, overtime I've seen the meaning of this amendment thoroughly dismantled only to be instantly reconstructed again - naturally by lawyers and academics.

The only positive thing that I can add to that proposition - one should never permit a lawyer to get anywhere near anything worthwhile ? Lest it all somehow disappears forever into the perpetual ether ?

Hasbeen's post reminded me of something my father told me.
When he joined up in 1915 a lot of those in his battalion where from the country.
They taught the army instructors how to shoot.
In Belgium they did not like wasting ammunition and mainly operated as snipers.
When the Americans arrived they were very green and the Aussie country
hicks were allocated the job of teaching them how to stay alive.

A sidebar, my father was shot in the knee and was lying in no mans land
when a couple of German soldiers came along. Looked at him picked him
up sat him on his rifle and carried him into the Australian lines and surrended.

Cossomby, "The landholder was deeply critical of pig-shooters who came onto the property without permission."

I totally 'get' that your creative anecdotal tales are ad hominens to poison the well against hunters universally.

However you really need to take a bit more care when drafting with that poison pen.

It is blindingly obvious is it not that anyone who would go onto a property illegally is first a criminal. That the said persons were ignorant and committed other offences is rather predictable where they already had scant regard for the law and others.

I will leave the other creative yarns for others.

This is the problem isn't it? That to make a case against hunters or gun owners as a group you and control nuts find it necessary to conflate the relatively small number of criminals and unlicensed offenders (also criminals by definition), who are already doubly offending by even touching a firearm, with the many thousands of good respectable citizens who have never offended and are certified to be so by character references and police checks.

Frankly I wonder how many here could satisfy the requirements for a car licence if the same standards were applied to motor licences too. There is a good argument for doing so and we could all sleep safer at night.

Suze, I'm not against laws that co trol how we store and use guns (with exception for farmers) but I do believe owning a firearm is a right of anyone who has not committed a crime.

My brother and I both grew up with guns and also learned how to use them safely. My son fired his first shot when he was 13 and to this day is a crack shot and very safe with a gun. He would also be in the minority of those who would not have to be taught the very basics should we ever need to defend ourselves. Most of our people would not only be clueless with regards to firing a gun, but chances are they would be frightened of them, all because the doo-gooders have managed to scare people into believing that it's the guns that are the problem, when in fact the majority of crimes committed with a gun are done so with stolen weapons. Criminals are the problem, not guns and all we have done is made the criminals play ground a whole lot safer, FOR THEM!

ONTHEBEACH...

Gees, you've sure got a burr under your saddle ol' man ! What's you problem ? Firstly you warn me of siding with those who tell others how to live their lives ? Are you kidding me ! Then something about associating with 'GREENS' ? Mate I might be an ugly, dispirit and aberrant old bugger, but being attracted to that cadaverous individual, Mr Robert (Bob) BROWN, or those other most 'fetching' and striking ladies, Ms Christine MILNE or Ms Sarah HANSON-YOUNG...?

ONTHEBEACH, I'll need to retire immediately in order to take a bucket load of medication if, as it seems my humble writing style has deteriorated so badly, as to appear that I've been unwittingly allured and beguiled by those people of the GREEN, faaaarrr left !

In fact so serious is it, my Pathologist should be directed to commence my autopsy without further delay ! And if for some reason I'm inadvertently detained, offer him my profound apologies if you will, and respectfully implore him to start the process without me ?

How could you misinterpret my comments so badly ? I don't like hunting ? Does it mean I deplore everything to do with that activity ? In a word, yes I do, it's just an opinion ? My opinion only ? Am I anti-guns ? In the hands of crooks and those who're suffering from a mental disorder, absolutely ? You should be as well, if you're not, well you've got a problem !

I've been around F/A's my entire life. I thoroughly enjoy examining the fantastic engineering associated with a fine Austrian or German even the nice Finish weapons. The simplicity and reliability of the humble AK47's, the various forms of the SKK and SKS's all reliable though 'rustic' would probably cover their descriptions ? Of course the Yanks produce great stuff, as did we, at Lithgow as well ?

I dunno mate, I really don't ?

Dear onthebeach,

It is amazing how you jump to conclusions.

I tell a couple true stories that happened to me, personally. You call them 'creative'. Do you mean you think I made them up?

I wrote them in a fairly bland way, with no indication of my attitude to hunting (although there were a couple of giveaways - I suggested to the land-holder that there were some benefits to pig-hunting, and I showed that I was familiar with hunting magazines). Then I asked the reader: what do these stories tell about the psychology of hunters.

For the record: I am not against guns or hunting per se; in my younger days I shot kangaroos and rabbits. I have handled shot-guns, rifles and hand-guns.

However I am deeply cautious about people who are obsessed with guns and hunting, and I know some individuals who legally own guns whom I would make sure I was never in the same place with them and a firearm.

I once went camping in Arizona (1970s) with a bunch of university students. Every pick-up had a gun rack in the back window, and one of the entertainments was shooting rattlesnakes with hand-guns and, basically anything else that did or didn't move. I had no idea whether anyone had a gun license. I spent the whole time terrified and was deeply grateful to get home without being shot. Certainly the omnipresence and casualness of guns in rural USA makes the Australian countryside seem like a peaceful retreat - on the whole you don't have to worry all the time about getting shot when driving around the outback.

So, back to the psychology of hunters. Probably in the US, 95% of gun-owners are OK (barring accidents), while the other 5% are the ones to worry about. For Australia, I have wondered over the years whether the general lack of a gun culture across the broad population here means that those people who are into guns here are in fact equivalent to that 5% about whom we should be very cautious and concerned.

And shooting pigs in pig-sties and taking selfies with road-kill suggest to me that we really do need to be very cautious and concerned about the 5% who are into guns here.

o Sung wu,

"ONTHEBEACH, I'll need to retire immediately in order to take a bucket load of medication if, as it seems my humble writing style has deteriorated so badly, as to appear that I've been unwittingly allured and beguiled by those people of the GREEN, faaaarrr left !"

Never fear....otb is the master of odious innuendo.

He employs it in place of respectful and balanced debate.

Cossomby,

"Dear onthebeach,

It is amazing how you jump to conclusions."

As above.

o sung wu,

If I have misinterpreted you and since you say so that is proof enough, I apologise. On review I estimate that much of my replies to you could and ought to have been directed to others instead.

Dear onthebeach, You wrote:

"It is blindingly obvious is it not that anyone who would go onto a property illegally is first a criminal. That the said persons were ignorant and committed other offences is rather predictable where they already had scant regard for the law and others."

There has been a long-standing problem in western NSW, especially with 'Mexicans' (Victorian hunters) who don't think it is illegal to go onto properties without permission.

Actually, for a long time it wasn't. Most of the country is Western Land Lease, and roads and farm tracks across the leases were considered public access roads - lessees could not lock gates. This changed about 20 odd years go, but there is still an attitude, especially by Mexicans, that no-one really owns the land and anyone has the right to go onto it. Indeed, many unfenced public tracks do still go across WLLs and it's no big deal to stop and walk around. Shooting without permission is another thing, but the 'freedom' of access means that it's easy for one to merge into the other.

On the other hand crime is on a steep increase through the area. You can't talk to a landholder without hearing stories of thefts, both stock and farm equipment, but in fact anything that's not nailed down(eg a pile of old bald tyres, the doors of a fuel stove!) High security fences are springing up all over, and in some areas what used to be a pleasant rural drive is now like travelling through a series of jails.

And on that topic, another genuine, non-creative anecdote coming soon.

Hi there BAZZ & HASBEEN...

BAZZ...what an interesting account of your Father's experience during WW l ! And how the Aussies taught many of the Instructors how to shoot properly. And the Yanks how to remain alive. I guess with living in the bush one would learn a lot of very useful skills, none of which more useful, than accuracy with a rifle. The fact those two German soldiers who assisted your Dad to return safely to his own lines, showed how heartily sick of war and the bloodshed they were also ? From all I've read and seen of the first World War, the casualties were enormous. Just the other day, I heard the figure of 9 million souls were killed during that war, 9 million, truly horrific figures ?

HASBEEN...As usual you speak a lot of common sense. Much of what you say of the possible Japanese invasion, I've heard repeated many many times before, so it must surely have legitimacy. In another thread you spoke of Bows ? Re-curves, compounds and the deadly crossbows ?

I've got a great deal of respect for the humble bow, I've seen an autopsy (death by misadventure), as a result of a compound bow ? The dedicated 'hunting' arrow, nearly completely exiting out the victim's back, killing him relatively quickly, according to the pathologists. It had been again 'reset' for Court, after which I tried pulling back the bow string. Initially the resistance was quite hard, then as I continued back pressure, it became very easy indeed !

Moral of the story, as you'd know, don't muck around with 'any bow' despite a learned Counsel for the victim's parent's, trying hard to invoke, a civil 'unlawful killing by negligence' lawsuit, upon the victim's former friend ?

Of course your statement apropos the 'Cross Bow'. Most have enormous power, they equate them more accurately in ballistic terms. The arrow or 'bolt' can quite easily tear right through the human torso, including minor bone structures. Describing such as 'ballistic resistant distortion', usually means absolute lethality for victims ?

Cossomby all your stories are just that, stories
You people make me sick! Get guns off the ordinary Australian like me? Well done! Your main complaint is someone actually enjoying themselves
Now I have to listen to some cowardly copper in Sydney start whining about the criminals have to stop shooting each other. Well we all know he is talking about Arab crime families heavily into drugs and protected by the police. Perhaps we could suggest the coppers leave honest Aussies alone and concentrate on not only crime gangs but the top cops who protect them.
You anti hunters why don't you have a go at these criminal gangs instead?

Hi again ONTHEBEACH...

You don't need ever to apologise to me for anything ! I've no doubt we're more or less on the same wave length, and that's all that matters. This year of 2014 is one that I shall be very glad to see the 'a.se' end of to be quite honest with you. So it's for this reason I tend to look around for a 'blue' ! At my age patently ridiculous, but there you are !

When younger, my puerile aggression was diminished by climbing those rickety old stairs at Billy McCONNEL'S at Erskinville. Now, Billy's dead, his gym long closed, I'm 75, and climbing stairs, is now what you might call, complicated ?

All the very best to you and yours for 2015 ONTHEBEACH - PS: Don't change mate, not one iota, your sense of reality and veracity is sorely needed my friend !

Dear JBowyer,

Why are you so defensive?

I said nothing in my posts about 'taking guns off ordinary Australians'.

My stories are true accounts of individual Australians'(including my own) experiences with hunters. These stories are just as valid as any stories of yours about people enjoying themselves.

I have no complaint about people enjoying themselves - but I do have a worry when hunters do dumb things.

I am not an 'anti hunter'. Reread my posts: I said to the farmer that hunters could be useful in killing feral pigs. I disagreed with onthebeach that people shooting without permission were 'criminals', explaining that there was a history of public access to WLLs in WNSW.

None of my posts refer to criminal gangs in cities. Of course the police should come down on these like a ton of bricks. I think it's a different question. And before you jump, I do not think the answer is to arm the entire civilian population - all that would mean is more accidents by gun, more suicides by gun, more domestic violence by gun, and more guns available to be stolen by criminal gangs.

However, your over-the-top rant and your attribution to me of things I did not say, just adds to my cautions about people who are a bit obsessive about guns.

You want me to accept that gun laws should be relaxed? Then don't jump to conclusions about other people's views and attack them unfairly, and write rational posts supporting your own.

"And shooting pigs in pig-sties and taking selfies with road-kill suggest to me that we really do need to be very cautious and concerned about the 5% who are into guns here.

Posted by Cossomby, Tuesday, 30 December 2014 4:00:26 PM"

With such tall stories, by hearsay, I think it more important we be "very cautious and concerned" about the truth as expressed by those in the anti gun fraternity.

o sung wu I carried a 303 for protection, a 22 & a shotgun for hunting, & a bow for fishing on the yacht with me. I got so sick of being able to see the fish in the clear tropical water, but not get them to take a bait, I set up a fiberglass 35Lb bow to get them. I was a good bow shot, but did use it much, as I discovered I did not like tropical fish much.

Some of our ladies would be surprised how many people shoot their food, once you get away from the incestuous cities. It is too expensive to run deep freezes continuously, where you have to generate your own power, so they usually only kill when extra people are around.

The conversation when we appeared at one mates homestead after a couple of years since our last visit. Mate "Phil, where did you come from". "Debbie, beef, goat or mutton"?.

Debbie, "I don't eat goat".

Mate, "right, beef it is". "Debbie, see if you can find some limes, Phil, grab that rifle, I'll get a horse to carry a carcass".

Debbie could have got the beef, she & the kids can reliably take out a match box at 25 yards.

Andy loved having visitors, as he got to eat real meat, rather than the usual poultry.

Cossomby,

Ok, so to be charitable to you, it is only by coincidence that your stories bear a lot in common with those so often related by 'antis-'.

Nonetheless, you are not talking about the apparent psychology of hunters at all, but the psychology of offenders, law-breakers. Your own psychology comes into it too. You are blind to the role that the police should be fulfilling and whether they are resourced to do it.

That is the fatal flaw in your argument. You are appearing to want to make the many thousands of respectable, law-abiding licensed citizens accountable for the selfish, unlawful acts of offenders who are very unlikely to be licensed and even in the unlikely event that they were, would automatically lose their licence forever.

To take the example of your 'hunters' claiming road kill as a 'selfie'. Anyone with a firearms licence would immediately realise and note that the discharge of a firearm on or near a public road is a serious offence. If that photo ever fell into police hands they would face arrest. Would a court believe their story, probably not. It is hard to imagine any licensed person would be so stupid as to risk licence, assets and good record for that. What would be the point?

So once again you are talking up the offences of society's usual offenders, law-breaking ferals, to blacken the name of the thousands who are licensed, keep withing the law and display strong ethics.

Regarding poachers and other law-breakers, particularly unlicensed offenders, quite clearly that is a law enforcement problem and up to the authorities to do something about it. It should not reflect on the law-abiding firearms owners and hunters, any more than you would be willing to accept the drugs, violence and weapons offences of outlaw motorcycle gangs reflect you on as a licensed car driver.

Has been wrote: "And shooting pigs in pig-sties and taking selfies with road-kill suggest to me that we really do need to be very cautious and concerned about the 5% who are into guns here.

Posted by Cossomby, Tuesday, 30 December 2014 4:00:26 PM"

With such tall stories, by hearsay, I think it more important we be "very cautious and concerned" about the truth as expressed by those in the anti gun fraternity.

CAN I SAY IT AGAIN: I AM NOT ANTI-GUN.

These are not 'tall stories by hearsay.'

They are cautionary tales - a warning - to the hunting fraternity. As long as hunters do dumb things, the laws will tighten up.

Jumping to conclusions is dumb. Reminds me of the case in the USA where a home-owner shot a woman who knocked on his front-door to ask for help after a car accident. Jumped to the wrong conclusion, but with a gun in his hand.

If you jump to the wrong conclusions about my posts, why would I trust you with a gun?

Suse,

"So, I don't think it is a big stretch to say that guns [cars] could be used just as easily to kill others, or the owner themselves, in a fit of depression or rage?

Does changing one word make a difference?

How many murders are committed using cars?
In Glen Innes a few years back two innocent people driving sedately in a 50 zone were murdered by a nutter who suddenly swerved into them head on and all three were killed.
The nutter had previously caused a sensation at a local service station by dousing himself in petrol and threatening to set himself alight; one wonders why he was free?

Suicides by car?

We don't know because vehicle accidents are usually written off to speed.

By the way, Suse, do you eat meat?
Is it not racist to be against hunting when so many people in this country come from cultures where hunting is one of their traditions?

Since this thread started I've shot five rabbits and one fox.
Got the bunnies on a warren, three with the first shot(they were very close together and two with the second barrel (12 ga. side by side double) and the fox on the way back to the car.

What have you done for the environment today?

Cossomby I will say it straight out what you have said is just B/S. No truth whatsoever. As for you deciding who should have a gun what about me deciding if you are sensible enough to go out never mind drive a car.
A parade of lies against shooters. Have a go at the arab crime gangs mate they all have guns and see how you go and then tell me about sense.

More misinterpretation, JB, I never said or implied that I should decide who should have a gun.

Again, why are you so defensive? Make your case rationally and unemotionally, if you want to influence those who are against guns.

Some light relief.

In 1935, Dame Mary Gilmore published 'Flint-lock and Rifle', about the guns in her family when she was growing up in rural NSW, ca 1860s-80s. It's a fascinating insight into the importance of guns in rural areas then. However, times have changed - and they had changed by 1935! - and the same need no longer exists.

Some extracts...

We loaded guns, in my day in ways and with things that would make a modern people's hair stand on end; while children handled and used fire-arms who would not now be allowed to touch them.

Above the mantelpiece of kitchen or dining-room, above or behind the front door, on the sides of the living room; or in a stand in the hall where the house was roomy, and in the gun-room when it was large, these were their places. Pegs driven into slab walls held them in the settler's hut, and no matter how many there were, and no matter how old, they were alw3ays charged. No shot was fired without an immediate reloading.

Of our own ancient arsenal the oldest was a wheel-lock. Brown Bess was a flint-lock, and had a dark stock and the loveliest deep bronze coloured barrel I ever saw. The wheel-lock was only used when there was nothing else left, and clouds of cockatoos or what grand-father called 'a skulk' of dingoes had to be frightened away.

Like the wheel-lock, Brown Bess was a pensioner, too. In the homely language of the day "a whole bellyful of shot in her" only scattered the ducks or broke a wing or two. But when shot was so hard to get that heavy stuff had to be counted, pellet by pellet, a wasteful gun could not be afforded. What Australia would have done but for China and her tea-chest lead I do not know. Tea was cheap no matter what the price, because of the defensive value of the linings of the chests, and because of what that lining meant to preserving or providing for the victualling of a family.

To be continued

Cossomby,

"In 1935, Dame Mary Gilmore published 'Flint-lock and Rifle', about the guns in her family when she was growing up in rural NSW, ca 1860s-80s. It's a fascinating insight into the importance of guns in rural areas then. However, times have changed - and they had changed by 1935! - and the same need no longer exists."

The same needs exist, but probably even more so as wild dogs have multiplied thanks very much to National Parks and the Greens.
Wild pigs are seen in many places where they never were in 1935 and foxes proliferate.
Happy days if we could reduce the killer feral population to what it was pre WW II.

Dear O Sung Wu,

<<And even a perfectly normal, reasonable, and law-abiding individual can become very very aggressive even violent, all over a bloody gun for goodness sake ! And I just don't get it, I really don't ?>>

Had someone came to confiscate a gun from Jesus' home, he would turn his other cheek and say, "the ammunition is in the cupboard opposite, help yourself and Oh, would you like an apple?"...

But just as you said, we are talking about normal people here. Jesus wouldn't mind if all his other possessions were taken away from him as well, but ordinary reasonable normal people do and we know that if someone wants to take away our possessions and our freedom, perhaps our life too, then taking away our guns would only be the first step.

Now I don't have a gun, never will, but the act of confiscating all guns in Australia disadvantages me as well because along with the actual guns they also took away the fear of potential burglars that I may have a gun at home and would be willing to use it, so I too kick and scream for having my non-existent gun confiscated!

As for licensing, yes, it is needed for safety: if it were possible for good people to obtain a firearm license for self-defence, then I would obtain one - not the actual firearm, just the license - for knowing that I have one is enough to send criminals away.

By all means Yuyutsu, turn your other cheek, along with your god, any time you like.

Some of us have no intention of being nailed to a cross, or beheaded by some cowardly big beard wearing follower of that other middle east god.

If you want to run your life according to some medieval superstition, used by the gentry to control their surfs, by all means go for it, but leave those of us less superstitious out of your ideas.

When in danger, I prefer the shoot first, & apologies if got it wrong afterwards technique thanks. Not interested in a red face from getting belted about or my throat cut.

Cossomby, ".. if you want to influence those who are against guns"

No-one is trying to convince you. That would be a waste of time. You and others have had the facts put before you many times over.

However I for one am not going to stand idly by while you and others spread untruths and misinformation aimed at blackening the names of the many thousands of solid, dependable, law-abiding citizens from all walks of life whose legitimate, legal, formally approved activities don't happen to suit you.

Where citizens with firearms licences are concerned I know I am dealing with the very best - reputable people of solid, impeccable character and good standing in the community. They are people whom others will formally vouch for, having know them personally for many years. They have been fully checked by police.

Yet astoundingly, the lunacy of the Howard inspired 'gun control' has put all of their names and personal details onto police computers as 'persons of interest'. Police conduct random inspections in their homes - with fully marked police vehicles parked in their driveways. Their names flash red on police car computers, along with their vehicle registration. It is bureaucratic lunacy, like something out of Catch 22. Hundreds of police and police weapons branches look over their shoulders monitoring them. Those police should be out collaring the bad guys.

Meanwhile, some terrorist inspired Muslim with a record, who was known to police, but wasn't on anyone's watch list wreaks mayhem in Martin Place, Sydney. To top it off, the hugely expensive White Elephant gun registry (another Howard 'initiative') very strangely and impossibly credited the offender with a legal firearm.

Great stuff eh Cossomby and you want more of it.

Peter and the other Apostles carried swords and if Christ were on Earth today, Peter being a practical man, would probably carry a 9mm Colt 1911 Model.

Don't be silly Is Mise.
Jesus and all the apostles would have been totally faithful to the 10 Commandments and never carry a weapon surely.
Thou shalt not kill?

Suse,

Christ knew that Peter and the others carried swords and obviously approved, otherwise he would have forbidden the practice.

you obviously have little knowledge of the Ten Commandments.
"Thou shalt not kill" refers to murder not legitimate self defence.

"2321 The prohibition of murder does not abrogate the right to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. Legitimate defense is a grave duty for whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

"Defense of life and person

Everyone has the right to defend his life against the attacks of an unjust aggressor. For this end he may employ whatever force is necessary and even take the life of an unjust assailant.... The life of another person may be defended on the same conditions by us as our own....A father ought, for example, to defend the lives of his children; a husband, his wife; and all ought to defend the life of one whose death would be a serious loss to the community. Soldiers, policemen, and private guards hired for that purpose are bound in justice to safeguard the lives of those entrusted to them."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13691a.htm

Dear Suse,

The original biblical commandment is "Thou shalt not murder". No idea why is was mistranslated in the English versions into 'kill'.

I think I should've stayed in bed and not write such a contentious piece ? Anyway, I did and that's the end of it.

It's not the licenced, legitimate F/A owner and user, that concerns me personal, rather it's the crooks who can get their grubby little hands on any weapon they chose, provided there's plenty of 'doh ray me' around to pay for it !

I've heard mention of varying numbers of illegal handguns that are around these days, and I would probably near double that figure ? It's my information, that it's the 'one percenter's' who run the illicit gun market in Sydney. With a couple even skilled enough, to act as armourers also ?

I'm not suggesting they're true journeymen, but they have sufficient skills to effectively remove serials, shorten barrels, and in one instance, render a mini 14 Sturm Ruger .223, into full 'rock 'n roll' mode ? I've not seen the work, still from what I've heard, this bloke is pretty handy ?

Which raises the question of personal (self) defence ? In NSW, you can't obtain a pistol licence, or any F/A licence for that matter, for the purpose of self defence, unless you can show a particular need ? There are a number of gem dealers in the city who carry pistols, because they carry huge quantities of fine gems about.

Their licence is granted, not to protect their precious gems, it's for their own protection. As an example, a person suddenly grabs a jewellers bag containing the gems, and decamps from the scene. The armed jeweller can't draw his .454 Casull and fire at him to recover his gems ? It's for his own personal protection only !

Sad but true. As it's always been asserted - 'the law is an ass' ?

Hunting is just another example of humanity's immoral ways of enjoyment, we kill other animals to give ourselfs small amounts of joy. We kill animals family's and sell them online to make a quick buck. May I remind you that we are animals too.

Welcome, Pixenal,

<<May I remind you that we are animals too.>>

No, if we were animals, than one couldn't demand that we behave other than "other" animals do, including hunting.

But we do have an animal body and brain, with similar instincts as other animals have, yet we should master those bodies rather than follow their instinctual dictates and allow them to pull us down.

All predatory animals kill by necessity, and most non-predatory animals will kill in self-defence, to protect their young and to protect their territory.

As far as I know, we are the only species that hoards bits of dead animals as furniture. Animals aren't 'civilised' enough to decide that the best thing to complement the new decor of their recently refurbished burrow is a nicely mounted cranium or a human-skin throw rug.

Hunting is OK as long as it done for the right reasons. Hunting feral animals because they are environmental pests is a fine and noble pursuit; hunting animals for food is fine if you haven't got any other sources of protein.

Trophy hunting is messed up. There is something a little bit 'Silence of the Lambs' about people who want to keep bits of dead animals just for decoration.

Hunting with guns, bows, or even just pointy sticks and rocks is fine if you're doing it for the right reason. But if your reason is just because you like bloodshed then you should start following MMA instead, and if your reason is because you want a head to hang on your wall then you should just get a nice Van Gogh print or something.

<freedom
1.
the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants.
"we do have some freedom of choice"
synonyms:right to, entitlement to; More
absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government.
"he was a champion of Irish freedom"..
the power of self-determination attributed to the will; the quality of being independent of fate or necessity..
2.
the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved.
"the shark thrashed its way to freedom"
synonyms:liberty, liberation, release, emancipation, deliverance..>

I am not be attracted to trophy hunting and there are many other interests and recreational pursuits that leave me cold. I would not impinge on the freedom of others to undertake lawful pursuits and probably, the State is often too ready to limit and restrict for populist politics, particularly where influenced by the prevailing political correctness.

It is not necessary to counter ad hominen that equates hunters with Hannibal Lecter. Nonetheless there are arguments for trophy hunting, see here,

<Trophy Hunting Can Help African Conservation, Study Says
John Pickrell
for National Geographic News

Trophy hunting can play an essential role in the conservation of African wildlife, according to a growing number of biologists.
..
According to a recent study, in the 23 African countries that allow sport hunting, 18,500 tourists pay over $200 million (U.S.) a year to hunt lions, leopards, elephants, warthogs, water buffalo, impala, and rhinos.

Private hunting operations in these countries control more than 540,000 square miles (1.4 million square kilometers) of land, the study also found. That's 22 percent more land than is protected by national parks.
..
"To justify the continued existence of [protected] areas in the context of increasing demand for land, wildlife has to pay for itself and contribute to the economy, and hunting provides an important means of achieving this," Lindsey said.>
http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2007/03/070315-hunting-africa.html

In Australia, indigenous leaders are upset that the political correctness of 'animal welfare' activists scuttled plans for safari hunting of up to fifty crocodiles a year That could have brought in $millions for the NT.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-27/croc-safari-hunting-ruled-out-environment-minister-greg-hunt/5349122

Hi there JONATHON SWIFT...

Conceivably those who wish to pursue hunting as an activity should first, lodge a written entreaty with you, specifying their ground(s) ? Should you adjudicate their reasons as being morally acceptable, perhaps you'll provide them with your imprimatur, permitting them to participate in that activity ?

Mate, I'm not a hunter either, in fact I'm against it; but provided it's lawful, that's it ! You can choose not to participate in it as a sport or activity if you wish, but I hardly think any of us can moralise about it, particularly if we're practising carnivores, do you ?

I have had interesting talks with the deer hunters who sought and obtained approval to camp and take deer on the farm. Their ethics couldn't be faulted. Way better for them to take and use almost every part of the carcass. Is 1080 poison a better solution? Definitely not!

Very civil of them to report some invasive plants (straight out with the tractor to fix) and they knock off foxes and wild dogs. Then they spent well in town, for fuel and supplies helping to keep businesses afloat. Bargain!

In Africa the larger animals are consumed by villagers I believe.

It is very shortsighted of the federal government not to permit safari hunting for saltwater crocodiles in the NT. Predictably, the animal welfare activists - always with their begging bowl seeking public donations - seem to find no problem with the taxpayer paying small fortunes for public servants to 'rescue' crocs from public areas, only for them to return or displace other crocs elsewhere. There are no 'spare' niches in Nature, dears. There is no free ride and someone always has to pay.

It is interesting how the conservative element in society tie everything to the almighty dollar! No matter what the issue is the money hungry mob reduce it to dollars and cents. Big game hunting in Africa is a prime example where mega rich Americans and Europeans will pay big bucks to kill a majestic animal such as an elephant, lion rhinoceros etc. Cop the bimbo in the attached link who has "scored herself" a leopard. This girl is well known for her exploits at killing wildlife in Africa and other parts of the world. Like for all these big brave "hunters", her African safari is carefully stage managed so there is no possible danger to the "hunter", just sure and certain death for the poor animal, and some have the audacity to call it sport, I would call it barbarism!

http://learningenglish.voanews.com/content/trophy-hunting-south-africa/2412610.html

But without the hunters dollars there would not be the management that is now necessary for African animals to survive.
Without the hunters dollars the wlld animals would be killed for food and the predators would just be killed because they were a nuisance.

PAUL1405...

What a useless piece of garbage that 'air-headed' women must be, to destroy a magnificent big cat like that ! To me that's totally unethical and unequivocally 'wicked', in every sense of the word, and serves no purpose at all. Actually it makes me want to throw up, it really does ?

What most people don't realise she has a licenced guide that takes her and her friends into authorised hunting regions, and when suitable game has been identified, she takes the shot. She has several safety shooters with her, in case she only wounds the animal, and the poor bugger becomes wild with agony and represents even more of a danger ! I think it's absolutely immoral and totally unethical, considering, we now live in the year 2015 for heavens sake ? Surely we've almost lost the 'craving and the lust' for killing, for killing's sake ? Apparently not.

"Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones is a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence.

This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and encompasses several logical fallacies, including appeal to consequences, appeal to fear, appeal to flattery, appeal to pity, appeal to ridicule, appeal to spite, and wishful thinking."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

What about considering a well-researched, constructive report that takes all of the relevant issues into account?

See here,

'Recreational Hunting, an International Perspective'
CRC Sustainable Tourism'
By Johannes Bauer & Jack Giles
WILDLIFE TOURISM RESEARCH REPORT SERIES: NO. 13
Status Assessment of Wildlife Tourism in Australia Series

http://crctourism.com.au/wms/upload/resources/bookshop/RecHunting13_Bauer.pdf

Beach, I am sorry some of us have allowed the valueless human emotions of love and kindness etc to blind us to the economic rationalism of killing majestic will animals in Africa or anywhere for that matter, shame on us all! Yes I totally agree there is a quid to be made out of killing these wonderful animals. BUT I don't give a toss about the money, shock horror a blasphemer no less! My concern is for the poor animals that have to be slaughtered in this way to satisfy the blood lust of a mega rich few, I say stuff em', not the animals but the so called "hunters".

o sung wu, thanks for that, my son who holds an unrestricted gun licence in NSW, told me how these safari's are arranged in Africa, they are simply a no contest, in no way can they be described as "sport". I am not opposed to the humane killing of animals per se, we humans kill million of them daily, sometimes under very questionable circumstances in our never ending drive to feed an ever increasing population. I do not believe my opposition on the one hand to what I see as unjustified senseless killing, and then support for what is necessary for human survival on the other.

Its all a matter of prospective, I have a very dear friend, yes she is a (young about 25) Green and an animal rights activists, she is totally opposed to all animal slaughter, she thinks I am barbaric with the above opinion. When we meet for a coffee (she is a cheap shout, drinks water), she doesn't, drink, smoke, eat meat or take drugs, works full time. In a way if we were all like "B" Australia would be a much better place, no crime, sorry no cops needed, she only sees good in people.

G'day there PAUL1405...

Please don't misunderstand me I'm no 'raving greenie', but I see no need whatsoever to be escorted by a licenced (expert) guide to a place where you can bag yourself one of the 'big four' (Elephant, Lion, Rhino & the magnificent, Bengal Tiger - native to India ).

I realise I'm diametrically at odds with my esteemed mate, IS MISE, and I do understand what it is, he's advocated herein. However there's got to be a better way, to manage, protect and control Africa and India's big game ? It horrifies me to see these mainly rich American's, troop over to Botswana or the RSA somewhere, pay the 'per head' licence fee, hire the licenced guides and shoot one of these magnificent beasts ! All the while there's two reserve shooter's nearby to protect you, should you only wound the animal - how bloody brave these bastards are ! Mate, it really makes me violently ill !

At least back at the turn of the century, some of the legendary 'Big Game Hunters' showed some courage, when they stalked these wild beasts. The likes of Theodore ROOSEVELT, US President 1901-1909, a Big Game Hunter of courage and repute, and considered the 'Great Conservationist' ? Showed extreme courage when hunting, using only his 'beater's' and guide to assist him. Probably the greatest of the English hunters, the indomitable, Frederick Courteney SELOUS often took, only his 'beaters' with him, when he set out on a hunting safari. The famed 'Selous Scouts' of Rhodesia, was subsequently named in his honour. In that era, there was some morality. Today, nothing at all ?

When there are more than enough males to go around and the herds/groups are suffering as a result what would be a humane way to cull?

The trophy bull being past its prime and one season more than likely away from suffering a lingering death resulting from the fights, damage and expulsion that Disney wildlife warriors never get to see.

Paul1405,

I have done my bit and provided a comprehensive report. What about some criticism of its research and conclusions? From its biblioghaphy alone, most (not you, apparently) would think it is very well researched indeed.

But no, all you have is emotional clap-trap and some anecdotal yarn about some young woman you meet. Why is it necessary that your informant/expert be a woman and young? -You are very careful to mention that. But why? It is irrelevant to to the discovery of any facts. Part of the emotional appeal, the political correctness of the Greens? Her outlook would stop crime, you say?! LOL

Here you go,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5f2RMc4e5s

BTW, don't you tell stories about your 'T' and other Islander rellies taking and eating shellfish? Do they throw them live into the coals or break them open to relish very fresh?

IS MISE...

Mate I don't know ? You argue a good case for the 'trophy shooter' to pay thousands of bucks to both the government of the country in which he wishes to hunt, plus more dollars for guides and other dollar eating costs, necessary to get 'up and personal' with 'Leo' or 'Jumbo' as an example ? Because it's a pretty costly pastime to mount, both an organised, and legal hunting safari for big game as you'd know ?

Still, it just doesn't sit well with me, I must be brutally honest with you ? The whole activity seems iniquitous even depraved to me, to take down a majestic giant, in order to mount a set of tusks over your fireplace somewhere in Boston MA. Actually I'm not even sure if ivory isn't a prohibited import into the United States any more ? Anyway, I'm sure our intrepid and audacious Big Game Hunter will mount something over his or her fireplace, even if it's the poor beast's dick or something ?

If it's just a nice photograph or something they want, they can find one of those 'trick' photo studios, where you jump into a 'rented' safari suit, complete with sun 'pith' helmet, stick your head through a hole, and have your face snapped to your heart's content. A lot cheaper too I'd expect ? I dunno IS MISE the whole moral question stinks I believe.

o sung wu,

Each to his own and I am not interested in taxidermy either. I am the original minimalist and don't like stuff hanging around that I have to clean. Never went for mounted cane toads either.

However, when one considers that many different people collect all sorts of mementos to display and remember their experiences there is not such a difference at all. When more bureaucrats were stationed in PNG for instance it was de rigeur that they brought back all sorts of feather and skin adorned keepsakes to remind them of their unique PNG experience as they went about the day back home.

Is collecting Italian handbags and shoes a morally better pastime? Why?

What about indigenous traditional dress (say) Islander or Maori? Is what they have collected and display, obscene?

Of course you're quite right ONTHEBEACH, to each his own. Interestingly, many of my mates can't reconcile the fact that while I enjoy the engineering side of quality F/A's, I simple don't like hunting and for that they reckon I'm nuts ! There may be quite a good deal of truth in that perhaps ? But as you say, we all have our favourite pastimes and activities that we all like to pursue ?

I've been a dedicated numismatists, for nigh on sixty years. Starting off as a teenager, gravitating to a serious collector in my retirement. I move from coins, to Banknotes, to tokens, back to coins again, whatever I can afford, and whatever that grabs my interest, at the time.

I suppose also, it's my prolonged curiosity in history that drives me in that direction at least. And numismatics does tend to inspire one's spirit of inquiry as well as a profound inquisitiveness, certainly in most areas of genuine historical pursuit. One only needs to closely examine a coin/token/medallion and a lot of interesting history does emerge from them, if one's patient and cares to carefully research it's past ?

I know what you're going to say my friend, it's a hobby reserved only for us old goats ?:) LOL ! I suppose if 'push comes to shove', and as a bona fide 'old goat', I'd probably have to agree with you there !

Speak again soon ol' man, 'til than, take it easy OK ?

Beach a wonderful 72 page report, simply marvelous, in fact its exemplary, I could go on and on about it. However I have my own one line report, here it is.

"I find the act of pointing a high powered rifle with a can not miss telescopic sight at a majestic animal such as a lion, which has every right to exist on this planet....BARBARIC! End of report.

"emotional clap-trap" no should we all be as hard and uncaring as a block of concrete? I;m glad I posses some emotional clap-trap.

and my friend is more concerned about chickens than rhinoceros, or maybe she is concerned about both.
read what I said the info on African safari I got from my 32 year old son.

o sung wu,

We unite in the freedom we cherish. Have a good day.

Hi there ONTHEBEACH...

And you too have a really great day, as we unite in the freedom we both cherish !

Paul,

How would you humanely cull the animals when overpopulation threatens their well being?

Is Mise, I can't get a fix on it, as the population is growing that fast, but there is now in excess off 7,287,294,642 homo sapiens on the planet and growing. The number increased by 150% in 50 years.

Elephants 650,000 with a 50% decline in the last 50 years.
Lions 35,000 down 75%
Rhinoceros 5,000 down from 65,000 in 1970

Population of Brisbane 2,000,000. People do better in Brisbane than large animals do in all of Africa. The population of sheep in Australia is 100,000,000, do we love sheep that much that we have to have 5 for every Australian? Kiwi's love sheep even more, they have to have 7 each!

How would you humanely cull the animals when overpopulation threatens their well being? AND it does, there is a problem with overpopulation alright (see above) and its not the elephants, lions or rhinoceroses! Is euthanasia the answer? No!

Possibly the worlds most endangered large animal the Javan Rhinoceros, with less than 60 animals believed to remain in the wild. Imagine what a killing we could make with a safari of big white hunters bagging a bunch of these critters! Beach, can you crunch the numbers please, give me a report! I sus at least a million bucks a head, maybe two, its all a win win situation, hunters have fun, we get rich, and the world is rid of another pesky animal.,,never did like Javan Rhinoceros, too smelly!

Paul1405,

You continually demonstrate why the NSW 'Watermelon' Greens are seen as a crack-pot unit, only intent on sensationalisn and headlines, with no solutions at all. They are a complete waste of the seats they occupy.

Again, what about considering a well-researched, constructive report that takes all of the relevant issues into account?

See here,

'Recreational Hunting, an International Perspective'
CRC Sustainable Tourism'
By Johannes Bauer & Jack Giles
WILDLIFE TOURISM RESEARCH REPORT SERIES: NO. 13
Status Assessment of Wildlife Tourism in Australia Series

http://crctourism.com.au/wms/upload/resources/bookshop/RecHunting13_Bauer.pdf
[Previously posted by onthebeach, Saturday, 10 January 2015 9:39:15 PM]

Paul,

Just answer the question.

Beach, The Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre (STCRC), was an Australian Cooperative Research Centre established by the Australian Government's Cooperative Research Centres Program to establish a competitive and dynamic sustainable tourism industry in Australia. It ceased to operate on 30 June 2010.

STCRC is a not-for-profit company owned by its industry, government and university partners. STCRC stands as the world’s largest travel and tourism research centre. Very good.

As I said, I have no problem with the 72 page report put out by this organisation. I am not too sure about its relevance to big game hunting in Africa, but I'll accept its finding.
Please allow me to hold the opinion that big game hunting and recreational hunting in general is immoral. That is my bottom line.

Is Mise, I make the point that it is us humans that have a population problem and not the animals, but you seem to want to penalise the other species on the planet for what is a problem of our doing.

I think that answers your question "How would you humanely cull the animals when overpopulation threatens their well being?" The "overpopulation problem of animals" is a man made aberration. Animals are suffering the same fate as many indigenous people have, when the European arrived he found the new lands were "over populated", in Australia's case by Aboriginal people in about 200 years we got the balance right, so we think, European numbers went from zero to 23 million, while indigenous numbers declined from 750,000 to around 650,000 including many of mixed race. Animals of little commercial value are going the same way!

Beach " why the NSW 'Watermelon' Greens are seen as a crack-pot unit, only intent on sensationalisn and headlines, with no solutions at all. They are a complete waste of the seats they occupy." We have a state election in March, why don't you put your hand up, say in the seat of Newtown, we Greens would welcome your democratic input.

Paul.

Regardless of how it happened animal over population is a problem that affects the long term well being of some populations, so how would you humanely cull those animal populations?

Is Mise, I say again the so called "over population" is a man made phenomenon. Ok! kill 1,000, then when more habitat is destroyed, kill another 10,000, and so on, until the whole species becomes extinct. You could say that Borneo is over populated by orangutans, if your aim is to turn all of their habitat over to plantation farming for palm oil, then you certainly do have an over population problem!

Here is a list of Australian animals that no longer over populate our country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinct_animals_of_Australia

Paul.

Quite impressive, but beside the point, we now have to manage many species for their own good, just as we have to preserve their habitat.

So, when culling becomes necessary; how would you humanely cull?

Is Mise, I am not going to be drawn on that "we now have to manage many species for their own good" and then the "when culling becomes necessary; how would you humanely cull"
I'll pick a species and you can give me the correct answer...CANE TOAD (in Australia)

G'day IS MISE...

When culling is necessary one method employed by an African nation (at substantial expense I'd admit) was relocation of the animals concerned ? Impractical, even absurd, when you consider the number of animals that may be concerned. All true, so you've got me there !

You see mate, what get's right up my nose, is some hugely wealthy Yank, Arab even a European who generally spends most of his/her time at their respective Stock Exchanges moving millions of their Dollars around. Suddenly decides to fly off to 'cash strapped' Kenya or somewhere, throw around thousands of bucks, and with the aid of perhaps over thirty or forty people, 'courageously' bags himself a nice Rhino.

He then proceeds back home and proudly informs all his friends and colleagues, how he stalked this magnificent beast, through the grasslands and thickets of the veldts, and having finally decided to take the beast, steadied himself, and 'bravely' took the shot !

Unfortunately, our immensely wealthy 'Dudley do Right' neglects to inform them all, that he literally had a well oiled machine at his exclusive disposal ! To ensure his every comfort, his demanding dietary needs, his fastidious travel arrangements, and finely his safety, have all been provided for him, and to verify, they obtain his lucrative return business !

IS MISE these are the creeps that engender my anger, surely you can understand that ? Just 'Pretenders' and 'Posers' in my opinion !

O sung wu,

I don't imagine that anyone here is lauding 'canned' hunts if they exist. However I don't see much evidence of that in (say) NZ, where there is a lot of personal effort and skill as well as money in taking a deer. The other option is the use of 1080 poison dropped in pellets from choppers.

In Africa, safari hunting delivers conservation where it was impossible before, for example, by providing native tribes with income.

Paul1405,

Your ducking and weaving and moving the goal posts underlines the Greens' lack of interest in practical solutions.

It is not necessary for Is Mise to defend hunting but for the opponents to prove a case why freedom should be curtailed.

As well, where superior morality is claimed, it is shabby and hollow to ignore the inevitable often worse consequences of that 'morality'. For instance, demonstrating 'higher morality' by capturing a Black Rat in the home and releasing it outside puts pressure on native animals (there are no 'spare' niches in Nature) and on humans (health, food supplies).

To cease control operations would be irresponsible, environmental vandalism, when one considers the impact on human health and welfare. Animal welfare and Greens' activists might regard humans as a noxious bacteria and be unconcerned, but feral animals also degrade ecosystems for native wildlife.

A similar argument applies to the native animals that have evolved to capitalise on boom and following bust weather pattern as (say) ducks and roos do, breeding up in thousands then suffering massive population collapse through starvation and thirst. While that is magnified by the supply of water (dams) and food from farming, where is the claimed 'superior' morality in banning (animal) over-supply being used for food, in lieu of animals dying from starvation?

A well-researched report on sustainable management has already been tendered, but true to form as a Green you have ducked it. The Greens is a protest party, a vehicle for setting the privileged few up in publicly funded jobs and pollies' benefits for life.

G'day ONTHEBEACH...

Perhaps my argument has fallen over, I don't know ? Put it this way, I personally would not participate in any organised hunt for any animal ? However that's purely personal, nothing else ? Though the way this lousy old world is going we'll need F/A's for altogether other reason(s) I suspect, and relatively soon too ? An activity in which I'd gladly participate, without question ? Though unfortunately the 'powers that be' would consider me too old, but I could still teach, if necessary ?

You know ONTHEBEACH we're losing this war with Muslim extremests ? They're already here, and amongst us, and we simply can't see most of them ? All the reassurance the government may give us, is patent nonsense. I'm not saying they're lying, they're misguided and misinformed, we've neither sufficient legislation, or the necessary mindset to interdict many of their illegal and covert activities, associated with these (seasoned) rogue Islamic terrorists, already living amongst us, most of whom are unnoticed ?

Problem is government's too concerned with those organisations that have a 'watching brief' over us, on behalf of the United Nations, the Ms. Trigg's, and other bureaucratic (auditory) bodies ? Bodies that regulate and observe much of what we do, in terms of controlling these rogue Islamic groups. Still we'll learn, it's just a case of; will we learn in time, before the entire Western World ends up in a massive shootin' fest ?

Paul,

I agree with you on the 'hunter' that you portray as a Wall Street type but none the less their money does a lot of good.

Cane toads are a feral animal and every thing possible should be done to eradicate them.

There are often over populations of 'roos in this country and I know people who hunt them illegally for food because they cannot afford decent meat on the pension.
They also hunt rabbits and hares.
Wallaby is only taken as a last resort because the taste is a bit strong.

However, how would you humanely cull animals when it is necessary to stop them suffering a lingering death in bad times; not only native animals but sheep and cattle as well.
It happens in drought times.

Do you think that Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders should be stopped from hunting their traditional food animals?
Is such hunting immoral?

o sung wu,

I am not likely to hunt for a trophy either. People are different. I see it as damned dangerous: long stalking, nerves of ice, perfect shot placement and cast iron cojones. You are in the dangerous animal's environment. Many hunters and highly experienced guides have been killed. With an elephant there is no concrete bunker to duck into. A lion or leopard? You are kidding, right!

Like climbing a sheer rock face it looks much easier on the screen.

There is no doubt that hunting is good for the environment. That was the argument for reintroducing wolves in US populated areas and ranchers are obliged to accept the fact.

The moral position that it is OK for the wolf to cull but it is not OK for man to do the same, is unsupportable. The deer hunter's ethic and priority ensures sustainability and herd improvement (extending the US example).

The French are caught in a quandary of their GOVERNMENT's own making, like some other notable examples. These reports are interesting,
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/01/12/paris-attacks-prompt-fears-france-muslim-no-go-zones-incubating-jihad/

http://www.catholic.org/news/international/europe/story.php?id=58341

Beach total rubbish, you confuse today's African big game hunters with those of yesteryear, maybe you watched too many old 'Tarzan' movies. Like your latest diatribe attacking The Greens, more senseless nonsense.

o sung wu, I think our views are similar, what gets up your nose also gets up mine. If these people were genuine conservationists, and wanted to do something for the people of Africa, they would spend their money hunting mosquitoes and not lions and elephants. The mosquito is a far more dangerous animal, if human deaths is any indication.

Paul1405,

You need to come up with some facts. That is not something the NSW 'Watermelon' Greens are used to doing.

I previously linked to this very solid report,

'Recreational Hunting, an International Perspective'
CRC Sustainable Tourism'
By Johannes Bauer & Jack Giles
WILDLIFE TOURISM RESEARCH REPORT SERIES: NO. 13
Status Assessment of Wildlife Tourism in Australia Series

http://crctourism.com.au/wms/upload/resources/bookshop/RecHunting13_Bauer.pdf
[Previously posted by onthebeach, Saturday, 10 January 2015 9:39:15 PM]

Here is another,

Indigenous Interests in Safari Hunting and Fishing Tourism in The Northern Territory
http://www.crctourism.com.au/wms/upload/resources/bookshop/Safari8_Palmer.pdf

This what the Greens block with their cynical political point scoring.

Beach, another nice report you have posted, I have no problem with it, all 48 pages.
We NSW Greens must have far more political power that we realise, according to you the NSW Greens are blocking all manor of things, not only in NSW but in the Northern Territory as well. Anyone who does not support extremest right wing views like you do, is seen as a blot on society. Is your party running candidates in March? We will be contesting every seat, plus a full team in the upper house election as well.

Here is a link for you, its only 6 pages but I do not expect you to agree with it as it a balanced policy which considers a bit more that just the almighty dollar, your common consideration in all you have had to say on the subject.

http://nsw.greens.org.au/sites/nsw.greens.org.au/files/National%20Parks%20and%20Wilderness.pdf

The Greens actually have more detailed policy than both Labor and Liberal on all manor of community concerns, and it is out there for all to see. Unlike some, we do not hide anything. Can you provide a link to your parties policy on this or any other issue, other than immigration? I think not!

Paul1405,

With all of those Greens senators with SFA to do in the federal Parliament and all of the resources available to them, for example the Parliamentary Library, that six pages of internally inconsistent, uncosted bumf is shameful.

Nice try but no biscuit to the senior public service gnomes in the NPWS who have figured out a way to expand their territory and pyramid.

Beach, I do not expect you to agree with Greens policy on anything, too progressive for you, that is one of the benefits of a democracy, differing opinions. That was NSW Greens policy I posted, our parliamentary members here do not have access to the Fed's library. With our party, its democracy all the way, the grass roots membership determine policy. As I said with our party its all there for even you to see. How does your party determine policy? Just jot down the thoughts of your 'Fearless Leader'!

Paul1405,

Not surprised that the NSW 'Watermelon' faction of the Greens are going their own way and are telling the feds what to do with the NPWS. Honestly now, apart from some self-interested public service gnomes who stand to benefit from the huge bureaucracy you propose for the NPWS. who else did the Watermelon faction consult? They (the NSW Greens) are not paying, have no idea of the impact elsewhere in government (and nor do they care), have not consulted with stakeholders and will not be responsible for the implementations or outcomes.

In short, the NSW Watermelons are up to their usual tricks, all rhetoric and protest, sensationalism and headlines.

That is why the previous 'Dear Leader' of the Greens and hopeful first President of the New World Order, Bob Brown, continually had to intervene with Watermelons like Lee Rhiannon over going their own way - like the picketing of a rather surprised owner of a chocolate shop for a boycott against Israel.

<Greens senator Lee Rhiannon stands by Israel boycott
THE AUSTRALIAN AUGUST 29, 2011

GREENS senator Lee Rhiannon has again refused to back away from the anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign, despite opposition from her leader, Bob Brown.

Her comments came as a group of federal MPs from both sides of politics, including Wayne Swan, gathered in a Max Brenner chocolate shop in Brisbane's Southbank last night to show their opposition to the BDS campaign.

.."I see the value of that tactic as a way to promoting Palestinian human rights," Senator Rhiannon told Sky News's Australian Agenda yesterday..

"I am quite aware Bob Brown has a different view on this," she said, but claimed there was growing understanding in the community for the campaign..

One counter-protester, Logan City councillor Hajnal Black, said BDS supporters shouted anti-Semitic slogans.

"It's shocking, the sort of things they were saying -- that Jews kill babies, Jews are terrorists . . ." she said.>
http://tinyurl.com/ojhqom2

BTW, what a strange and unhappy coincidence that a Sydney chocolate shop later became the site for terrorism.

Paul,

The NSW Greens are up to their old tricks, taking a line from a person who had similar principles, the late , but not lamented, Dr Josef Gobels they continue the old trick of telling lies until by repetition they hope that they will be believed.
The also continue their rather nasty habit of using the anguish of bereaved people to further their own agenda.

To wit:
"SYDNEY SIEGE SHOWS TOUGHER GUN LAWS NEEDED NOW

Thursday, Dec 18th, 2014
Today's revelation that the gunman at the Sydney siege had a gun licence must lead to tougher gun laws across the country.

NSW Police Commissioner Scipione must immediately explain how a man charged with such serious violent offences retained a gun licence with the NSW Police Firearms Registry....Greens MP and Justice Spokesperson David Shoebridge said:

"NSW has seen four years of inaction on gun control in the face of a growing pro-gun lobby in the NSW and Commonwealth parliaments.

"It is impossible to understand how the NSW firearms registry did not take immediate action to revoke this man's gun licence once he was charged with this offence.

"Police Commissioner Scipione has at all times had the power to suspend this man's gun licence under s22 of the NSW Firearms Act.

"Why didn't Commissioner Scipione move to suspend the gunman's licence given the serious charges he faced? There is no point having a power to keep the community safe if it is not used.

"This man was not only charged with accessory to murder and indecent and sexual assault offences but he was also on the terror watch list. However NSW gun laws are so lax that even this does not produce an automatic suspension of his licence."

David Shoebridge must have a big mouth to be able to get his foot so far in it.
http://nsw.greens.org.au/news/nsw/sydney-siege-shows-tougher-gun-laws-needed-now

Continued:
""Media Statement: Firearm licence status of Man Haron Monis
Release Date: Thursday, December 18 2014, 11:22 AM

On the morning of Tuesday 16 December the AFP provided a brief to the Prime Minister regarding Man Haron Monis holding a registered firearms licence.

The AFP has since confirmed that Mr Monis was not a registered firearms licence holder. NSW Police have since confirmed that there is no record of Mr Monis ever having held a firearms licence.

The information provided at the time was based on a manual entry in the National Police Reference System in the category of ‘Firearms licence Holder’."
http://www.afp.gov.au/media-centre/news/afp/2014/december/media-statement-firearm-licence-status-of-man-haron-monis.aspx

Now if the Greens had only checked before jumping in at the deep end
there would not be this embarrassing gaffe.
If they had any sense they would have removed it immediately the Press Release was announced the SAME DAY.
Bit stupid really.

It is even better than I thought,

"SYDNEY SIEGE SHOWS TOUGHER GUN LAWS NEEDED NOW

... violent offences retained a gun licence with the NSW Police Firearms Registry. The Police Commissioner has at all times had the power to suspend the gun licence under s22 of the NSW Firearms Act.< ... parliaments. "It is impossible to understand how the NSW firearms registry did not take immediate action to revoke this man's gun ...

Lauren Moore - 18/12/2014 - 1:54pm"

Note the time, the Media Release, dated and timed at 18 Dec 2014 11:48 am, therefore the ultra competent Greens had a bit over two hours warning that they would be making themselves look like idiots if they went ahead with their own bit of propaganda.

Makes one wonder.

Hi ONTHEBEACH...

A bit off the Topic, however your last sentence in your most recent thread you said in part '...unhappy coincidence that a Sydney chocolate shop later became the site of terrorism...' ? I heard yesterday, the Coroner's hearing is listed to be heard in two weeks time ?

Surely not ! How on earth could they possible assemble all the evidence, convene all the witnesses, examine and collate all the forensic material, and then present a comprehensive set of facts, to a Coroner's Inquiry ? I've had to undertake such duties and you can believe me, there's a heck of a lot to be done, in order for the Coroner to make the necessary findings, and recommendations ?

The Coroner (A Magistrate) does not function like an ordinary Court, some of the rules of evidence don't apply. By it's very nature, the Coroner's function is to make a finding as to the circumstances of what happened, who's involved, determine whether or not, any culpability can be deduced, recommendations to avoid any repetition of the incident, etc., etc. ? Very much an Inquiry.

Furthermore I would imagine many of the witnesses who'd been held captive therein, would still be too emotionally scarred, perhaps too traumatised, to even contemplate furnishing any useful and compendious evidence ? Evidence of a kind, that would satisfy the inquisitorial nature of the Coroner, and/or Counsel assisting the Coroner. Accordingly, there's a great deal of interrogation undertaken during such an Inquiry, and I suspect some of those who were directly involved, even injured, may yet be too ill to attend, let alone provide useful testimony ?

For this reason, I'm wondering if there's some form of political angle or motive, even a 'cover-up' of some sort ? Something's not right here, I just don't know what ?

o sung wu,

A coincidence I thought.

Is Mise, did not Tony Abbott inform all and sundry the Mad Man Monis had a gun licence?

http://www.smh.com.au/national/afp-wrongly-briefed-prime-minister-tony-abbott-that-man-haron-monis-had-gun-licence-20141218-129pk4.html

How about a comment on the incompetent Constable Clod at the AFP! Heaven help us, with the mob of spooks and coppers we have in Canberra.

Paul1405,

Is that wrong information still being posted on the Shoebridge and NSW Greens sites without correction and apology to the NSW Commissioner of Police and the NSW police?

If so, why?

Beach NO! Provide a link.

Paul1405,

Fine, thank you. Was there ever a retraction, explanation or apology made to restore the character and good work of the NSW Police Commissioner and NSW police following the allegations leveled at both?

Paul,

I provided a link but lest anyone think that I imagined it; here it is again.
http://nsw.greens.org.au/news/nsw/sydney-siege-shows-tougher-gun-laws-needed-now

Maybe it's a good propaganda lie and the Greens just can't bear to let it go.
Do the Greens take everything that Tony says as Gospel truth?

They are green!

Hi ONTHEBEACH...

I'd be quite surprised if anybody ever received an apology,or explanation or anything else for that matter, from the Greens ? They're so intensely consumed with their own self-importance they'd never think of the personal injury or embarrassment they might cause someone, with their fanciful and thoroughly erroneous diatribe ?

It's little wonder therefore, they have no respect nor credibility with the majority of the electorate ? Other than a small irrelevant selection of disenfranchised, intellectual 'airheads' !

For a real laugh see the Greens policy on firearms
http://nsw.greens.org.au/policies/nsw/firearms

o sung wu,

Greens' Shoebridge seems to have it in for Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione and NSW police.

Perhaps that is only to be expected where the Greens rely on the 'rule-breakers' and disaffected in society for votes. An example is the Greens support for the outlaw motorcycle gangs - who are in fact responsible for a lot of the illegal guns, drugs and violence that is about, and the middle-eastern OMGs, for the drive-by shootings as well.

There is a lot of misinformation though. For example, the Greens claim that the drug sniffer dogs have a woeful record of success. What they are not saying is that while the person may not have drugs on them at the time the dog is correctly sensing recent drug exposure and many detected do admit coming into contact with drugs prior, but not having any on them when stopped.

Shoebridge doesn't seem to have any ideas of his own, he is shamelessly following the set script of the awful Lee Rhiannon(Brown) and riding the same bandwagons. That explains why Shoebridge has so many 'comments closed' (with no comments being posted at all!) on his site. It is all show and headline hunting.

Is Mise, The Greens can not be held responsible for the incompetence of the Prime Minister! If anyone should have a grip on the situation it should be Abbott. Obviously his erroneous comments in relation to Mad Man Monis shows the ineptitude of the fella. Or was there a more sinister motive behind his comment, shift the blame to someone else, like the NSW Police Commissioner.
As for your post dated December 18th 2014, and I quote "Today's revelation (by PM Abbott) that the gunman at the Sydney siege had a gun licence must lead to tougher gun laws across the country." That opening sentence justifies David Shoebridge completely.

Since you think Greens policy on firearms is "laughable" then you must be in favor of the following policy, which is opposite to The Greens policy.

1 An increase in firearm violence in the community.
2 A proliferation of firearms to cause injury and death.
3 A total acceptance of gun violence as a fact of life.
4 No legal controls on guns.
5 Rural gun owners should be free to shoot anything and anybody they like. After all they are a "special" case.
6 Dodge City syndrome, everyone should carry a shooter to blast it out with anyone who get in their way.
7 Unrestricted importation of automatic and semi-automatic weapons.
8 Target practice in schools for all child over 5, got to shoot straight to get em' before they get you.
9 A free hand gun (loaded) with every 'Happy Meal' purchased at McDonalds.

I am proud of Greens policy on Firearms. Thanks for the link, any sensible person reading it, will no doubt agree with it.

Paul,

Dubious humour won't get you or the Greens off the hook,
the lies are still on their web page, twenty-nine (29) days after the AFP admitted that there had been a mistake.

Why is this so?

Incompetence comes to mind as does the idea that if it's left up there someone might believe it.
When first posted it might have been a mistake even though it was two (2) hours after the AFP correction but to leave it up deliberately for a further 29 days makes it a deliberate untruth.

Greens' Firearm Policy.(Example 1)

"7. That personal protection should never be regarded as a genuine reason for owning, possessing or using a firearm."

OK, Paul, it's black humour but surely humour none the less.

"7. That personal protection should never be regarded as a genuine reason for owning, possessing or using a firearm."

Is Mise are you suffering from the Dodge City Syndrome? I assume you only want to arm the adult population, ore will children also be tough how to be 'gunslingers' as well. In your ideal society will all be entitled to carry a concealed weapon for as you would call it "personal protection", like they did in the wild west town of Dodge City. Now that is as laughable as the Shooters and Fisher NSW policy of allowing saving hunting dogs onto public land where families and their children camp and play.

Paul,

Analyse the sentence,

"That personal protection should never be regarded as a genuine reason for owning, possessing or using a firearm."

and tell us all what it really means, take your time, look for the real meaning, that is what it plainly states.

Don't bother to project onto me what you think that I think certain things, just (for once) answer the question.

I

Paul,

Whilst you are in an analytical frame of mind you might have a look at the following and tell us all what it means?

"Now that is as laughable as the Shooters and Fisher NSW policy of allowing saving hunting dogs onto public land where families and their children camp and play."

Do you mean 'savage'?

Hi ONTHEBEACH...

I don't think many ordinary, sensible people would place too much stock on anything the 'Greens' may say ? Some of their statements concerning F/A's are mischievous and quite fanciful. 'None of us' want the criminal element, or those with serious mental impairment, within a 'Bull's Roar' of a gun of any type.

That said, Australia in fact every country on this planet has need of a F/A of one sort or another, for their very existence, as well as a very large number of mature, well adjusted individuals who pursue a sport, where a F/A is an integral part of that sport. That doesn't include the thousands of primary producer's who need guns to rid their property of all manner of vermin, as well as (humane) animal destruction in times of emergency and severe drought.

There are a great number of legitimate hunters who lawfully take game for the table, though personally myself I do not hunt, but that's purely a personal preference, and I for one do not wish to see lawful hunting banned, simply because I oppose that activity !

Unfortunately, I really believe they're becoming quite precarious, because they tend to have an appeal to many of the younger more radical and less informed individuals, who seek nothing better than to destabilise our society, for reasons that are yet unclear ?

In their early days, I generally supported much of their 'green policies' mantra, protection of our forests, and waterways, and much of our fauna and flora ? Today, they've drifted right away from those laudable issues, and seemed to have become almost a rebellious group of activitests who stand for nothing, but to dislocate good governance, by automatically blocking many of the more important pieces of legislation in the Senate ? Whatever major party is in power.

And that is far from productive, because many of the 'Captains of Industry' cannot make sound financial policies and decisions for their individual Companies without government legislative stability.

The Greens are a very slack outfit, shamelessly refusing to be anything other than an untrustworthy, random, protest party when they were in partnership with Gillard, whose gender, class and culture wars should have been to the Greens liking.

As people age they are sure to have met some people in their work and private lives who are good at criticising others, being disruptive and are always out for themselves but never produce anything worthwhile at all. Worse, such forever-whining, *bleep*-stirring toxic communicators bring everyone down who listens to them.

Totally exasperated and revulsed by the grinding self-interest and gameplaying of senior Greens, Gillard went on record to declare that she always knew that the Greens were just an untrustworthy protest party and she regretted having to get into bed with them.

The wonder is that the media and particularly the ABC give the Greens such leeway and a free podium. It is rare for the media to ever subject Greens policies to any scrutiny. The Greens don't produce anything by design, but their policies still should be examined.

It is a great life for Greens politicians: just ride the bandwagon, bag government and business, lob the occasional grenade to get attention and no care and no responsibility at all.

o sung wu,

The last Green in the NSW Parliament that I can remember being a genuine conservationist and also a brave activist was Ian Cohen and the good that he attempted to do was constantly undermined by his fellow Green, but not fellow collaborator, Lee Rhiannon, she of the Watermellon faction that now controls the party.

"Lee Rhiannon"

A toxic communicator if there ever was one.

Bags everything and everyone, but is doing very well for herself out of that 'system' she so despises.

It is so easy being Green: nothing to do, nothing to produce and definitely no responsibility taken. Just ride those bandwagons and let the criticism rip!

Hi (again) IS MISE & ONTHEBEACH...

That's the problem here gentleman, generally these Greens have always been associated with issues of conservation, as their epithet implies. Of course, many of their initial conservation policies were quite reasonable ? That is until they thought themselves anointed authorities on everything, and harboured this ridiculous opinion of themselves, they're the only Party that can save both the State of NSW, and the Nation ?

Problem is many of their beliefs are founded purely on, imaginary and mythical material, much of it without any corroborated verification of fact. As evidenced by their erroneous conclusions and remarks associated with the Martin Place incident. Together with the assertion that the offender was licenced to possess F/A's. It is for this reason, one could never trust them with your vote !

At the last state election in NSW The Greens receivered over 450,000 votes more than three times the vote of The Shooters and Fishers Party. No wounder when you consider it is S&F Party policy to allow for SAVAGE HUNTING DOGS into public space where little innocent children are playing. The Greens have already exposed this mobs reckless Dodge City mentality on guns.

We (S&F Party) will introduce legislation to ensure that the use of dogs in the hunting of feral pigs. Totally reckless policy! what about the children?

When your thinking is to arm as many people as possible, such action can only lead to disaster. This crack pot statement from S&F

"Establishing the ‘genuine reason’ of Family and Personal Protection for lawful possession of a firearm."

What on earth is genuine reason? For some it could be to shut up a noisy neighbor on a Sunday morning. 'Genuine reason' open to loose interpretation.

Paul,

Just tell us what the sentence really means,

"7. That personal protection should never be regarded as a genuine reason for owning, possessing or using a firearm."

you obviously know English, and while you're at it tell us how you'd humanely cull animals.
Let us say that a grazier has 5,000 sheep and the country and particularly his property is badly drought affected.
He has to slaughter at least 1,000 of his flock; what's your (Green) humane solution?

Hi there PAUL1405...

The proposition that the existing F/A's law in NSW might be broadened sufficiently, to permit a F/A to be licenced for the exclusive purpose of self-protection ? I don't believe we'll ever see it, either here in NSW, or in any other State or Territory, in Australia ?

I could be quite wrong, however if they were to permit such a licencing variation, they'd more likely licence a handgun, rather than permitting a rifle or shotgun to be used for self-defence ? Even in the US the various States opt out for handguns, and even then that includes a 'concealed carry' permit when the licensee is absent from their normal place of abode ?

That is to say, should an individual seek a F/A for protection, if granted (and it usually is) they issue a permit that includes both private and public possession, and concealed carriage. It's for this reason, if we here in Australia, were ever to seek an appropriate model, we'd more than likely follow the US system...if the permit's granted, then it's a case of 'all or nothing', basically ?

And never just a rifle or shotgun exclusively ? It's been determined in the United States at least, a handgun (by it's design) is purely for defensive measures ? In recent times however, as we all recognise, the use of handguns have been broadened somewhat, and are now used in various sporting activities, including hunting, and are no longer consigned 'exclusively' for protection ?

Hi O Sung Wu,

As an ex-policeman surly you of all people can see the dangers of allowing the general populace to be armed for so called self-defense. It truly would be Dodge City and the wild west, except it would not be 30,000 people but in Sydney's case 4,000,000.

Some of the Shooters and Fishers Parties policy I actually support, but as a thinking human being I find a policy which states;

"Establishing the ‘genuine reason’ of Family and Personal Protection for lawful possession of a firearm." end of quote. Pure madness.

In your career did you ever come across a person, say in a "domestic", who had done something terrible to the other party, which he or she has regretted doing later on. If you shoot someone dead and regret it later, nothing in this world can bring them back.

Recently in Sydney we had an Irish national king hit his own brother, almost killing him, through alcohol fueled anger, you know what I'm saying, give him a gun! Never. What some do not realise, that S&F above policy is going to put hundreds of extra guns on the streets of my city alone on a Saturday night.

Hi (again) PAUL1405...

At the risk of being beaten to death by a few other's on this Topic I do agree with you, as would just about every single copper in this country. It wouldn't matter how carefully you'd screen potential licence holders, even if say 2% or 3% of every applicant proved they possessed a 'low frustration tolerance' (quick tempered) that is too greater risk to discount ?

One need only to observe the United States to see what can happen when some people (notwithstanding 'gender' either) 'goes postal', and it's the coppers that need to clean up the mess and front the criticism, 'for doing' or for 'not doing' something or other ? One of the greatest difficulties faced by TRG or SOG police is your 'Monday morning quarterback' telling us what we did wrong, particularly the media. If evidence is required of that statement, one need only look at the comments associated with the Martin Place (MANIS) hostage drama ?

Imagine if every responsible adult was permitted to carry a handgun ostensibly for self-protection, it wouldn't look like Dodge City, it would resemble more like the landings of 'D' Day ! I know some long serving police with rank, given the right (wrong) circumstances, even they, are quite capable of coming out of their respective trees. Look at some of the 'road rage' incidences, it's not referred to as 'rage' for nothing ! All you need to do is push the right buttons, and well.... ?

O sung wu,

In the days of 'Possess, Usu and Carry' pistol licences in NSW there were no problems, I had one for years and never did I do my block, get drunk etc.
In fact I never drew in anger and on the two occasions when I justifiably might have, I merely pulled my coat back so that the would be crim could see the danger that he was in; instant fright-flight.

Paul,

Would you like me to tell you what that appalling Greens sentence means?
Probably you wouldn't but here goes:

"7. That personal protection should never be regarded as a genuine reason for owning, possessing or using a firearm."

If that were law then a person who would now be judged not guilty for using a firearm to defend life would have committed an offence by using a firearm.
Now the Greens, in all honesty, probably don't intend this meaning but there it is, in black and white; lack of forethought perhaps, lack of English skills or just the usual plain old incompetence?

The insult to the Commissioner and the lie about Monis are still up on the NSW Greens' site,
When can we expect that long overdue apology?

Paul1405,

Why would the Greens deliberately promote false information on their site? A lie that disgraces the NSW Police Commissioner and the NSW police?

So much for the credibility and ethics of Greens' Shoebridge!

Hi IS MISE...

I'm sure that's very true of you, given your extensive background with small arms, both as a Veteran, and as an individual who's vocation it is, that he's primarily surrounded by F/A's ?

You'd also recognise, with that long protracted exposure to weapons, one does gain a certain familiarity with them over time. As a consequence you tend to exercise a much greater degree and awareness of their safety features, then possibly an individual who may be carrying a handgun for the first time ? Even though he may be appropriately trained and licensed etc. ! I believe you know precisely what I mean, IS MISE ?
.

O sung wu,

"....possibly an individual who may be carrying a handgun for the first time ? Even though he may be appropriately trained and licensed etc. ! I believe you know precisely what I mean, IS MISE ?"

Yes, mate, I know exactly what you mean, like a police constable when he first starts on the job.
Why could experienced civilians not be licenced to carry concealed, especially men with military experence, as a 'First Responce' if need be?
Our society is steadily becoming more violent and the police cannot be expected to be everywhere so some other method of defence of the citizens is/will be needed.

Hi O Sung Wu,

Thanks foe the answer, it is exactly what I expected. Arming the citizenry, instead of bring law and order, it would bring more deaths, more unrest in the community, blind Freddie can see that! My understanding with a police officer before getting to the point of having a gun and the power to use it unsupervised is rather a rigorous process. Obviously you can not take a raw recruit, give them a gun, and put them on the street, I would say, a recipe for disaster.

Hi Is Mise

You are the laudable exception, when it comes to carrying a gun. Please point out the last time a private citizen used a firearm which resulted in death of another person, and that private citizen was proven not guilty on the grounds they were defending theirs or someone else's life. It does not happen.

How about you explain Shooter and Fishers Policy.

Establishing the ‘genuine reason’ of Family and Personal Protection for lawful possession of a firearm.

This is not bad English, it is bad policy. Please explain what is a 'genuine reason', and by whom, and by how, is it determined. Of the 23 million people in Australia, how many do you see as having that 'genuine reason'. What is a firearm? Is it an AK47, is it a 'pop' gun?

You put to me the following; "Let us say that a grazier has 5,000 sheep and the country and particularly his property is badly drought affected.
He has to slaughter at least 1,000 of his flock; what's your (Green) humane solution?"

If it is marginal farming, and bad farm management, resulting in the destruction of these poor sheep, then this grazier should be prosecuted for cruelty to animals.

Hi Beach,

You go on about The Greens, in the NSW Parliament, even the Liberals and Nationals, see the two members of The Shooters Party as a couple of unpredictable Wally's, who try and tie ever piece of legislation to their own crazy agenda.

"Why could experienced civilians not be licenced to carry concealed, especially men with military experence, as a 'First Responce' if need be?"

Is Mise, what a load of old cobblers that statement is, if it was not so dangerous it would be laughable. You must have got that one from the 'Two Bobs' What will we call them 'The Brown Shirts'! To add insult its going to be a men's only club.

Don't forget my question above.

Paul,

You still haven't answered my questions, so I'll just put your's on hold until you do.

o sung wu,

On the technical side you might like this:
http://www.forgottenweapons.com/landstad-1900-automatic-revolver/
and browse the site for a few others!!

Is Mise, that could be the ideal weapon for 5 year old's, nothing too dangerous.

I have answered all your questions. Green's policy is not ambiguous. Now can you explain S&F policy what is meant by "genuine reason" and what is a "firearm". Is I hate my mother-in-law a "genuine reason" is a bazooka a firearm. Simple yes or no will do.

Paul,

You still haven't told me how you or the Greens would humanely cull.
So how would you?

Greens' policy on firearms is not only ambiguous in places but downright stupid and apparently vindictive in some instances.

they call for firearms training but then further on call for the abolition of a supervised training period, crazy.

Nowhere in Greens policy are we calling for a Prohibition on firearms. The policy states;

15.4 Establish good and genuine reasons for possessing a licence (e.g. persons with an occupational requirement, e.g. primary producers, other rural purposes, security employees and professional shooters for nominated purposes or a member of an approved sports shooting association);

That in itself shows a willingness to accept the possessing of firearms by some, other than the police and military. We expect all the above will have a legitimate use for a gun(s). The culling of animals, even sheep, although through good management culling can be kept to a necessary minimum level.

I have made every attempt to answer your questions, even to the point of saying I am accepting of some parts of the Shooters Party policy on firearms. Your failure to answers my questions about "genuine reason" and what constitutes a "firearm" indicates you either don't know, or realise it is a load of dumb down meaningless drivel. Correct me if I am wrong

Paul,

The definition of 'genuine reason' and 'firearm' are covered, as you well know, by legislation, legislation by which we are all bound.

You have never answered the question about humane culling, I know that the Greens somewhat favour 1080 but that is not humane.

As an example of strange Green policy in NSW:

"6. Rural owners of licensed firearms should limit their use of firearms to legitimate farm purposes and minimise disturbance of people on neighbouring properties."
What other purposes would a farmer have?
How far away are the neighbours 3 or more kilometers?

"25. Enforcement of regulations requiring guns in homes in rural communities to be kept in a metal box with a combination lock securely bolted to wall or floor, with firing mechanisms and ammunition locked in a similar box in a separate room;"

This is an example of either pure nastiness or an utter lack of knowledge of rural life.
Farmer Jones is woken in the middle of the night by wild dogs attacking his sheep.
If he turns the lights on then the dogs will scatter and by the time he manages to get a firearm and its firing mech and ammo the damage will be done.
How is he supposed to store guns from which the firing mechanism cannot easily be removed i.e. ones that requires a screw driver and numerous screws to be removed?

Continued

How would you remove the firing mechanism from an 1892 Winchester (it and its derivatives are common firearms in rural areas).
To help you Paul, I append:

"1,007,608 Model 1892 rifles were made by Winchester, and although the company phased them out by 1945, they are still being made under the Puma label by the Brazilian arms maker, Rossi, by Chiappa Firearms, an Italian factory, and by Browning in Japan. In its modern form, using updated materials and production techniques, the Model 1892's action is strong enough to chamber high pressure handgun rounds, such as .357 Magnum, .44 Magnum, and .454 Casull. Despite being designed for smaller cartridges, the 1892's dual forward locking-block action is actually stronger than Browning's rear-locked Model 1894."
from Wikipedia.
and numerous drawings from which you make get an understanding of the problems involved in following the Greens suggestions.
https://www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=winchester+1892+drawing

G'day there IS MISE...

You've got to stop sending me these 'Links' to some of these brilliant old F/A's !! I've always loved the old 'Wobbly' Scotts and their many derivatives and counterfeit copies Particularly the venerable .455 ctg. with a muzzle velocity of walking pace, and with a big 'mother' of a projectile. I do like their engineering too, though I've never attempted to pull one down ? Still the poms understood their stuff, and over time, they opted for the 9mm Browning (High Power) GP35 as did we. You would've serviced many hundreds of Browning's over time IS MISE ?

You mentioned the proposition of arming many experienced ex-servicemen for the purpose of an ex officio 'posse comitatus' styled groups. It wouldn't work my friend. To exercise controls on such a large body of people, would be impossible. There are many experienced, ex-servicemen, returned servicemen, and retired police, who'd I'd not want to see permitted to carry a concealed weapon, let alone use one.

Exposure to military life, or law enforcement in itself, doesn't mean we're a 'fit and proper person' to be allowed to carry a concealed weapon ? Does any one of us remain 'psychologically stable' all our lives either ? Most do I'd agree, however some don't. Does our physical abilities necessarily remain the same our entire lives ? And our faculties - eyesight, hearing, and judgement, do these vital faculties increase or decrease as we get older ? All of these issues can, and do impact upon us, particularly if ever we were called upon to 'safely' carry a concealed gun, and moreover fire that gun at another human being (under extreme pressure) ? The difference between 'Rules of Engagement' a military term, and the 'lawful use of lethal force', are as far apart as can be imagined. Therein lies the problem ?

I do understand where you're coming from IS MISE, but arming any of those who've been suggested, would only create chaos for police and the public alike !

Is Mise, by blindly supporting the more crazier aspects of Shooters and Hooters policy, and adding some way out wacko ideas of your own, like a Dads Army style para military first response mob, shoot first ask questions later mentality, you make yourself an easy target for a sharp shooter such as myself. You have attempted to promote all the red herrings you can, short of a Polar Bear invasion of Bondi Beach on hot Sunday afternoon in January, not too many concealed weapons there. As for the furphies about farmers with antique guns and packs of wild dogs in the middle of the night, its up there with the Polar Bears.
Since you have no idea what the Shooters and Hooters mean by "genuine reason" and "firearm" you tried to do a snow job, with its in the "legislation", no its not, its on the Shooters web site, I asked what does that crazy mob mean by "genuine reason" and what is their definition of a "firearm". They make no reference to any so called legislation which you claim we are all bound by.
Is Mise, I enjoy our one sided debates, you put up some nonsense and I shoot it down in flames, and i don't even own a 'Howitzer', but I might need one if The Shooters and Hooters ever come to power.

o sung wu, "I do understand where you're coming from IS MISE, but arming any of those who've been suggested, would only create chaos for police and the public alike!"

Just one of the fatal flaws in your reasoning is that if those people are as you suppose there is nothing to prevent them from possessing firearms anyhow. Australia's porous borders see to that. The outlaw motorcycle gangs - in particular the middle eastern OMGs - import the nasty 'gangsta' guns they want in containers, of which very few are ever likely to be inspected.

To follow on, you are also silent on the many and varied other options 'they' have to wreak mayhem, for example petrol.

When it comes down to the nub of it, there are hundreds of years of Australia's past experience with broad ownership of firearms that challenge and dismiss what you are worried about.

Apart from the violent and other nasty traditions and political cultures constantly being imported where federal governments have botched up immigration and border policies, what possible differences are there between the children of the Fifties and the children of the present day that renders them incapable of being trusted when they reach adulthood?

Cadets used to carry firearms in the street and clean and care for them at home. What prevents them form being just as thoughtful, responsible and careful now?

I am suggesting that the only difference is in the altered minds of the public - minds filled with fears and hysteria, wrong and twisted thinking - put there by the foul, dangerous and limiting political correctness that is widespread and systemic in the West.

It is the cultural Marxism boasted of by the leftist 'Progressives' that enslaves.

Paul1405,

You are all over the place but you still haven't replied to that question: "Why would the Greens deliberately promote false information on their site? A lie that disgraces the NSW Police Commissioner and the NSW police?"

So much for the credibility and ethics of Greens' Shoebridge and the Greens!

Given a comparison between Australia and the United States with the United States having far softer gun control laws than we have here. Based on deaths per 100,000 of population, homicides, the US rate is 25 times greater than Australia 2,83 per 100,000 compared to 0.11 for Australia. Suicide by firearm is 10 times greater in the US than Australia 6.30/100,000 compared to 0.62.
I forgot, Beach will tell us its all the Black peoples fault. A white country with a black population is Canada. Again with tougher gun laws the Canadians come out on top 0.51 for homicides and 1.60 for suicides. Take a US state with around 3% black population, similar to Canada, New Mexico where gun murders are still over 6 times higher than Canada's at a rate of 3.3 per 100,000 of population.

ONTHEBEACH...

You say F/A's have been a part of the Aussie culture for 'yonks' ? That may well be true - and by the way it's simply NOT my reasoning OK ! It's an undeniable fact ! Our society is like a movable feast it's changing with many more ethnic groups living amongst us, and with some of those group a F/A is as part of their culture as a schooner is part of ours ! Registered...NEVER ! No longer do police have the real 'hard' presence on the streets, where once they did !

In fact the police force is partly comprised of people under 5'6" who are politically correct, smooth talking graduates, who are fast tracked up the investigative tree ! The old 21 Div. closed! The SWOS team closed! The TRG closed! The magnificent 'Consorting' Squad, closed! The old 'Armed Offenders' Squad closed! Now they have some 'hairy fairy' bloody group which is a cross between the old SWOS and TRG 'pasted together' with 'politically correct' and 'recyclable' celotape !

And the whinging public 'squawking' about their F/A rights when the coppers are barely able to hold this city together!!
From ethnic gangs! Bikie gangs! Islamic gangs! and now this ISIL stuff! Mate, you'll be damn lucky if this city remains even recognisable, in 25 - 50 years hence !!

There are suburbs where some coppers are too intimidated to venture! The bikies rule some places at night, despite what the coppers do! The 'the 1%ers' have briefed leading Silks, (and they have the cash to do so!) to ensure the coppers don't step a 1/2" over the legal line! Years ago, we'd take em'on and move em' out whenever we choose to do so ! You see, we (the coppers) owned the streets, both day and night, not the ethnic gangs and criminal scrum!

So ONTHEBEACH best you check your facts before shooting from the hip !Talking about, the 'what's' and 'maybe's', to do with F/A's !

Paul,

Like all Greens you are out of touch with reality.

Wild dogs are a fact of life in country areas:

"TWO wild dog attacks in three days have all but wiped out an Eatonsville family's flock of sheep.

Tac and Lyn Campbell woke to the throaty barks of their flock's guardian dog Tiny about 12.30am on Sunday.

Racing out to the paddock near the house the couple saw four to five dogs attacking their sheep, with Tiny trying desperately to chase them off.

Mr Campbell shot and killed one of the dogs and believes he might have mortally wounded another.

They weren't killing for food, they had a lust for blood and wanted to kill anything they could [this is a feature of wild dog attacks, Paul, sheep left treading on their own intestines]
In the attack, eight sheep were killed, or so badly injured they had to be destroyed

Mr Campbell said the dogs returned a few hours later and he and his wife heard Tiny barking again.

At first light when he was patrolling his property Mr Campbell saw three dogs running away, but could not get a clear shot at them."

This was on a small property imagine what goes on on larger properties.
http://www.echonews.com.au/news/wild-dogs-on-killing-frenzy/1778704/

or consider, at your leisure, this snippet from the SMH

"....David Worsley, a sheep and cattle farmer from the Northern Tablelands, said baiting programs were "absolutely essential," as trapping and shooting were a less effective means of culling on large properties.

"I think I've only seen two wild dogs in my life for all the animals I've lost," he said.

Mr Worsley said he had lost as many as 300 sheep in one year to wild dog attacks, and often up to 14 sheep a night during a bad period.

"More often than not you have to actually euthanase the animals, rather than finding them dead," he said.

"You know before you get anywhere near [the sheep] you know it's going to have its back leg missing or its kidneys eaten.

"It's one of those absolutely gut wrenching things. Mentally it can be extremely hard on you."

Local Land Services will partner with 62 wild dog control groups to lay 240,000 baits across 765,00 hectares in the Central West, the greater Sydney area and the Riverina and Hunter regions.

Aerial baiting will be used to cover a further 4400 kilometres across more remote parts of NSW, including the vast West region where wild dogs problems have reappeared for the first time in generations.

"People who didn't know what a dog problem was are now faced with issues their fathers hadn't seen," Dr Peter Fleming, research scientist with the Department of Primary Industries, said.

Dr Fleming said the baiting program would likely be beneficial to native animals.

"The dogs are a predator of [native] wildlife," he said, "and there are indications that where you control dogs you get increases in things like brush-tail rock-wallabies."

A spokesperson for RSPCA NSW said wild pest management should be balanced with the "continuing need to improve current control methods or replace them with more humane and effective alternatives".

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/allout-offensive-launched-against-wild-dogs-in-regional-and-rural-nsw-20141022-119x6r.html
The RSPCA is so far out of touch as to be off the field entirely.

o sung wu,

I disagree with the many thousands of lawful-abiding, licensed persons being conflated with the lawless and nasties of society.

As well, I disagree with those thousands of law-abiding licensed damned good citizens, people the police themselves rely on for support and information, being listed as 'persons of interest' on police computers. That is with the negative stereotyping and inevitable police attitude change to those citizens that the listing results in.

I disagree with random police visits (with fully marked vehicles in driveways!) and inspections in the homes of those thousands of law-abiding, licensed citizens.

In fact there is very good reason to say that the interests behind such initiatives have something very different in mind than reducing offending. For starters, the same interests would have a fit and be screaming in rage at any perceived violation of the rights of offenders, no matter how minor.

Allow me to give an example, there is no doubt whatsoever that indigenous rank high in the number of incidents of serious domestic violence, and Middle Eastern gangs are implicated in drive-by shootings. Imagine the righteous indignation and frothing rage if all members of either group were accordingly put on police computers as 'persons of interest'. It would be stupid to do so anyhow. No-one is saying that their ethnicity is a risk that police must be informed of before going to their homes.

On the other hand the possession of a firearms licence be red-tagged on screens in patrol cars. What is that saying to police, why? How is it relevant? In fact the person has a very low risk of ever committing an offence, including jay walking.

It seems to me that my taxes are being wasted having all of those police leaning over the shoulders of the only people apart from themselves presumably, that police can rely on NOT to commit a crime.
contd..

continued.

If authorities are real in their concerns I am sure they would be drawing a more obvious connection between gangs, drugs and violence, and they would be prioritising the closure of those porous borders too. It would be easy and low cost to apply more technology to screening of containers.

Drug trafficking is one of Australia's biggest and most successful businesses, with many millions changing hands annually. There is no doubt whatsoever that these amounts of money and other benefits that gangs can deliver result in corruption to the very top of society. There are federal politicians who are known to be involved. To take a past example, the father of multiculturalism Labor's Al Grassby was alleged to be involved with the Mafia and drugs in Griffith.

'Gun control' is absolute bunkum and I wonder about the motivations of those involved in promoting it. It is convenient to keep the chattering masses and slack media outlets occupied though. Cynical politicians can pretend to 'solve' problems with more regulations too. -Must be only coincidental that the new laws have no impact on the root causes and the drug trade continues to make millions.

ONTHEBEACH...

I'm done with this topic. We could argue ten days from Sundays and nothing would be achieved by any of us. You don't know how the coppers work, and I don't understand nor appreciate why it is, the coppers cop a constant hammering from the bloody public ! Mate you got a beef with the law, see your dedicated politician !

Beach, that was some rant against the coppers etc. I as civil libertarian, and you a member of the ultra right, allows me to understand your frustration with the democratic process we operate under in Australia, I am sure you would be relieved to live in a police state where the rights of citizens are completely ignored and head kicking is the norm. However that is not the society we choose to live in, we cherish the checks and balances democracy gives us.
Not often do I find myself defending the police, but on balance I much prefer the police force we have in NSW, (Sydney) and the laws that govern it, than what operates as such in many other parts of the world. The policing of Sydney, in my opinion, is generally commendable when compared to similar forces in other large cities of the world. Our police are far from perfect in many regards and some of your ranting has some justification, but to say police should not be aware of whom in the community has a licensed dangerous weapon is ridiculous, intelligence is part of good policing, and to be forewarned, is to be forearmed.

I am at a loss to understand why, in the days when personal pistol licences were issued in NSW that there was not mayhem by all those people who carried concealed pistols.
I don't know the exact numbers but a mate and I, both licenced pistol dealers added to our incomes by running a service in our respective areas doing a yearly inspection on such pistols.
For a set fee we did any necessary repairs (of which there were very few) test fired and supplied fresh ammo and returned the pistol cleaned and oiled.
Never had a customer that went off the rails.

G'day Is Mise,

As you are unable to explain "the Shooters Parties interpretation of "genuine reason" and all I can find is the following from the police info on a gun licence application I am at a loss to understand personal protection as it is not given as a genuine reason to apply for a licence.

Genuine Reasons
Sport / Target Shooting
Recreational Hunting / Vermin Control
Primary Production
Vertebrate Pest Animal Control
Business or Employment
Rural Occupation
Animal Welfare
Firearms Collection

Which one covers that personal protection aspect you and the gun happy mob favor?

Paul1405,

You are just stirring. Your concern about the NSW police is comical. What about the lie being spread on the Greens site? See here,
onthebeach, Sunday, 18 January 2015 7:21:20 PM

o sung wu,

I hope that when you re-read my posts you will come to realise that I am chasing my usual themes, specifically the taxpayer getting value for money from the taxes, and accountability. My assessments, criticisms and suggestions are focussed at the policy level.

General comments
While it might not impress everyone, I am not prepared as a citizen to stand by while governments continue to spruik and waste money and police resources on the farce that is 'gun control'. It is damned deceitful of politicians and government to put cheap populism and pleasing tabloids and media-savvy nuisances with undisclosed secondary agendas to serve, ahead of being frank with the public and basing policy on evidence, not emotion.

To get in in advance of those who are expert in muddying the waters, there is sense in licensing, which is the only robust control available. While licensing will not deter offenders, it provides the means to convict and penalise that small element who do wrong. There is also sense in not allowing fully automatic firearms. However the facility to do that was already in place and being acted upon before Howard.

There is an over-supply of absolute rubbish written about gun control. As taxpayers and as citizens we owe it to ourselves to examine it critically. Where that is done it is impossible not to conclude that it is a fraud being perpetrated on the public by lazy politicians who play politics. John Howard was never a statesman, but he was superb at wedge politics, deflecting awkward questions and finding whipping boys to blame in lieu of being accountable.

Paul,

Personal protection is not a genuine reason to hold a firearms licence in Australia except in Western Australia where a pistol licence may be granted for personal protection in certain circumstances.

It is legal in NSW to use a firearm for self protection provided that that is not the reason for applying for the licence, as I mentioned earlier the Greens would even take this away.

Haven't you told your mate David Sandalplank that his lies of the 18th December are still up on the website?

He must be as thick as two planks.

Is Mise, under your 'personal protection'regime will there be as many licensed gun slingers in town, as there are licensed car drivers, or dog owners?

Beach, you are barking up the wrong tree as usual! You knew nothing about The Greens press release, 18th December, until it was posted here by Is Mise. Now, true to form, and like a dog with a bone, you yap on about it. A press release is just that a press release, nothing more, nothing less and relevant to events at the time of release. End of story, I see nothing to apologise about. We could do with a couple more like David Shoebridge in the parliament and get rid of the useless pair of Two Bob's.

As I said, as you hate The Greens, why don't you throw your hat in the ring in the seat of Newtown and try and stop Jenny Leong from getting elected. A rabid right winger such as yourself would make for a most interesting contest. You could not do worse than your man Jim did last time around in Rockdale.

Paul1405,

You admit that the press release still has currency despite the false information and insinuations therein.

No correction and no apology, but it is still there?

What confidence can put on any of the information disseminated by the Greens? The obvious answer is none whatsoever.

Beach, how is that bone? The only one who should appoligise is the Liberal Party for having an inept leader pretending to run the country. Explain why our so called PM can not get even the basics right when it comes to national security, and we should be comfortable with this bloke in charge? You seem to be.

No matter how much you try, from time to time you slip up, and your true colors come to the fore. To quote you, a sheep in wolves clothing no less. My post concerning the NSW police was sincere, and I meant it, I believe policing, particularly in a big city like Sydney, is not easy, I see it all the time. Just the other day, a drug dealing terrace house was busted near me, by what I call the "board shorts brigade", young coppers who are dressed more like they are going to the beach than doing a bust. The community knew about the joint, and I'm sure the coppers were given some tip offs. That sort of thing might not be 6 o'clock news, but the locals are grateful for that unsung work by the police. O Sung Wu, the cops had the 3 dealers handcuffed to the front fence, what a sight as they waited for a paddy wagon to cart them off in, they didn't look so tough then. The coppers do a million things that don't rate a mention, but my community see it all the time. When there is trouble, who do they call, not the local priest or the green grocer, they call the coppers.
I have not even mentioned New Years Eve and our local street party, we needed the cops 3 times that night and the young girl constable who responded twice done a fantastic job with a couple of drunks.

Paul,

".... A press release is just that a press release, nothing more, nothing less and relevant to events at the time of release"

That press release was a grab at pushing the Greens' agenda of tougher gun laws, it was an opportunistic grab that had no grasp of the facts and relied on lies for its impact.

How did a terrorist who had a prohibited firearm that had been illegally shortened have anything to do with a need for tougher gun laws? There are already laws that cover the terrorist's offences.
The gun must have been obtained illegally.

Press release or not, it was a statement, a statement that was untrue and moreover one that was made with reckless carelessness.

An apology is due as Shoebridge made a statement of fact (even though it was not a fact), moreover a statement that he should have known was false

OTB,

About as much confidence as a '200 to 1' horse in the Melbourne Cup.

Is Mise , you failed to answer even the basic questions I have put to you. I'll put them again in simple terms, which only require a simple answer.

1 What is the Shooters Party NSW definition of "genuine reason" as it relates to their stated policy?

2 What is the Shooters Party NSW definition of a "firearm". as it relates to their stated policy?

3. Given the implementation of the entire Shooters Parties NSW policy on firearms, how many additional firearms does the Shooters Party envisage would be added to the NSW community by that policy?

Those are easy questions, if your are going to hold with a particular policy you should be able to articulate the ramifications of that policy. Can you?

Paul,

"1 What is the Shooters Party NSW definition of "genuine reason" as it relates to their stated policy?"
[Probably 'Self protection'; look at their website].

"2 What is the Shooters Party NSW definition of a "firearm". as it relates to their stated policy?"
[again ,whatever is allowed by law; look at their website].

"3. Given the implementation of the entire Shooters Parties NSW policy on firearms, how many additional firearms does the Shooters Party envisage would be added to the NSW community by that policy?"
[your guess is as good as mine, but as many thousands of people already have firearms, probably not as many as you might fear].

I'm waiting for your 'humourous' take on wild dogs; have you taken it on board yet that they exist and that they are a problem?

Have you ever seen a sheep with its guts ripped out Paul?
Have you ever washed the dirt and sheep dung off intact intestines, shoved them back into the sheep and then stitched up the belly slash, without the aid of anesthetic?
Crude medical practice however when needs must.

Can't do much for a slashed throat, the blood loss is usually to great.

Then there is lambing time when dogs and foxes eat the new born lambs and then rip into the ewe's vagina and tear out the birth canal from the living animal, the prize, apparently, is the placenta.

Look it up on Google, you might get a few ideas for a joke or two.

That lying Greens'post is still up,
maybe they're saving it for the NSW election, those that vote Green will believe it.... they'd believe anything.

Bye the way, Paul, have you found any lies that the Shooters' and Fishers' Party MPs have told, especially those told under the protection of Parliamentary Privilege'?

Or are lies told in Parliament just press releases?

I'm also at a loss to understand why the Greens oppose Aboriginal people hunting on their own land, sounds racist to me.

Is Mise, again you muddy the waters, inferring the only way to control wild dogs is through shooting. In fact baiting is the preferred option.

David Worsley, a sheep and cattle farmer from the Northern Tablelands, said baiting programs were "absolutely essential," as trapping and shooting were a less effective means of culling on large properties.

"I think I've only seen two wild dogs in my life for all the animals I've lost," he said.

Mr Worsley said he had lost as many as 300 sheep in one year to wild dog attacks, and often up to 14 sheep a night during a bad period."

This is not at loggerheads with Greens policy, in fact it endorses it, without any support for an increase in firearms as per yours and the Shooters ideas.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/allout-offensive-launched-against-wild-dogs-in-regional-and-rural-nsw-20141022-119x6r.html

Paul,

It is thee that mudieth the waters.

All of your quotes above were supplied by me.

I thought that the Greens were all in favour of humane ways to control wild dogs, baiting is not humane, far from it.

However I'm glad that you have finally discovered that wild dogs exist and that they are a problem.

Constantly amazed at the gall of the Greens in denying their political interference and gameplaying have not contributed to problems for farmers, in this case the explosion in the numbers of wild dogs.

Of all of the Greens factions and there are almost as many factions as members, the Greens' 'Watermelon' faction would have to be the wedge that is furthermost from the original environmentally conscious Greens. The previous 'Dear Leader' of the Greens and hopeful first President of the proposed New World Order, Bob Brown, was forever trying to pull the NSW 'Watermelon' Greens and the awful Lee Rhiannon into line but never succeeded.

Contrary to what Paul1405 is saying (and apparently Paul is not as far in the NSW Greens loop as he might pretend to be because 'that' lie against the NSW Police Commissioner and his police force is still up on the Greens site), the sustained pressure from shooting is effective in controlling all sorts of ferals, including dogs. Shooting was always vital to removing the seriously damaging killer dogs and packs.

Never having ventured into the country except to stir the possum, the Greens would not know this. But then the Greens are very casual where facts are concerned, as demonstrated by their persistence in displaying wrong accusations against the NSW Police Commissioner (see previous posts).

Some recreational hunters trap as well, which is a bonus.

The problem is of course that the low rent NSW Greens have done deals to knobble the hereto successful Games Council and its recreational hunters. Now the dogs are out of control and the contract chopper baiters will make a killing in more ways than one.

to be continued..

continued..

Can the environmentally risky and inhuman 1080 aerial baiting and trapping contractors employed at huge cost to taxpayers be effective alone in controlling the high risk dogs and packs? Apparently not, as most farmers and authorities (without a politically skewed line to serve) would readily concede. See here,

<Wild dog baiting 'not working'

A drover moving cattle in western Queensland says there needs to be tougher regulations on the use of 1080 baits to control wild dogs..
"I'm now 54-years-old and my dogs are still dying of 1080 and the dingoes are out of control - that is telling me the stuff is not working."..

Barcaldine Mayor Rob Chandler says domestic dogs picking up poisoned baits is unfortunate.

He says a wild dog bounty should be considered in light of the growing wild dog population and the problems associated with 1080 baits.

"Domestic dogs are being killed quite regularly by the spreading of 1080 baits and unfortunately that is just a side effect of blanket baiting to try and control wild dogs," he said..

"If we throw out collectively across Queensland probably 100 tonne of 1080, and the dog problem is getting worse, maybe we need to look at a bounty system that is right across the state - from north, to east, to south and west - right into those communities around Toowoomba and places like that.">
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-07/wild-dog-baiting-not-working/3638930

1080 drops used to be restricted to problem areas. Now the effects of the 'perfect storm' of ill-conceived 'gun control' and opportunist troublemaking by keyboard greens and other serial activists have resulted in the explosion in the numbers of certain feral animals, especially dogs - as exampled by the growing problem of wild dogs on nesting turtles in North Queensland.

The problem with the Greens and other activists is that they are never caused to own the unforeseen negative consequences of their activism. It is all 'La, la, la, you are talking to my hand' from the serial activists who are adept at manipulating naive, more likely lazy, journalists.

Beach, you have absolutely no knowledge of The Greens, what so ever, other than what you can glean from your ever exhaustive naval gazing. As usual you pontificate on this subject, as you do on every other forum subject, being the ever present expert that you are. Besides how much can one observe from the vantage point of a dingy basement in Tempe, nothing! There can't be too many factions in your party with only three members... you, Ross and Doctor Jim.

Thoroughly concur with everything that On the Beach said in his preceeding post.
I knew some of the Conservationist Greens before the Lee Rhiannon blitzkreig and there thinking was miles away from today's Greens.

How you going with the Feral Dog jokes, Paul, got down to the guts of it yet?

Is Mise, yes you can not speculate as to the Shooters meaning of "genuine reason" or "firearm", no one can, as no meaning is given. You also freely admit you have no idea as to how many additional dangerous weapons would be unleashed into the general community by the irresponsible Shooters Party policies, true no one has any such idea.
I must also assume you can not tell me how many additional murders, accidental homicides and suicides will take place as as consequence of this half baked Shooters policy, if it were to be introduced. How many more, and how often, could we expect "Port Arthur's" to occure, or others, as evil as Ivan Milat, to go on a murderous gun rampage, again I am sure, like the Shooters, you have no idea.
With the introduction of the dumb down Shooters policy, could we expect to embrace the American experience of almost daily shootings in schools, burger bars and small town communities, I am sure we could. On a positive note, with such a policy, a minuscule number of blood lust enthusiasts could enjoy their favorite recreational activity of killing defenseless animals, then with all that human carnage going on in the community, no one will notice.
Is Mise and Beach, I appreciate your concern for sheep and wild dogs etc, however it is a pity such concern does not extend to the human population.

Was that all your own work, Paul, or do you have Sandalplank's ghost writer do it for you?

Here's a post copied from another forum:

"Re: When the Greens lie they like to keep it going
« Reply #16 on: January 18, 2015, 07:07:17 AM »

The lies are still up on the Greens' NSW site.

Takes them a while to get the message, or do they hope that if they leave it up long enough it will become 'truth'?

The Greens are unique though, the only slime with legs."

Is Mise, you say from another forum. is that the forum run by the National Socialists? Was it posted by a Nazi? We Greens have broad shoulders and such abuse is of no consequence to us.

There could be another agenda for those from the extreme right in wanting lax gun laws. We often point to the United States and its uncontrolled guns, but there is worse, Pakistan!

There is an old saying in Pakistan, many sons and many guns! The attitude towards guns in Pakistan is to say the least wow, just great. In fact the laws are probably more lax than the US. In the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, you can own ROCKET LAUNCHERS, you can install ANTI-AIRCRAFT GUNS on your roof without a licence. However, in most other areas, the laws are different.
Basically a license is needed to own guns. It is quick to obtain, requires no genuine reason, and after that you can basically just go crazy and buy anything from Full-auto AKs to single shot revolvers, what ever you like, hand grenades are common household items. Also did I mention that you can carry your guns anywhere. Yep, as long as they remain concealed they are good to go. People in Pakistan wanted the right to own guns and it is even constitutionally protected. This is defiantly a gun owners paradise! When it comes to guns will Australia become the next Pakistan? If some here had their way it would be a certainty. And I haven't even mentioned Somalia, where anything goes. Is the Shooters and Hooters Party in Government over there?

Paul,

You'd better have a word to that ghost writer

"....from Full-auto AKs to single shot revolvers"

I know that the Pakistani's have some crap firearms, but 'single shot revolvers' has to be a new low even for their backyard workshops.

Did you know that all Indian citizens have the Constitutional right to own firearms including pistols for self defence?

Is Mise, I take it you are supportive of Australia introducing third world standards when it comes to gun laws. Can we expect to see anti-aircraft guns mounted on the roofs of the Shooters and Hooters HQ shortly? it would be interesting.

You need a new script writer, Paul, don't give up your day job.

Is Mise

I have enjoyed our one sided debate, as usual, like the "Lanced Boyle" and the NSW Game Council debate, it has been a pleasure. You put up your rather, how can I say it, pathetic pro Rambo line and like shooting fish in barrel I blow it to pieces. thanks again.

Just one parting problem, you may be able to assists with.
I purchased mail order, one slightly used Sherman Tank, from a Pakistani war surplus mob, purely for self defense, no other reason. I parked it under the car port, but unfortunate the gun is a bit long and it was poking though Stan the neighbors lounge room window. Stan got the wrong idea, thinks I'm being aggro, and having a go at him. Stan has now mounted a Russian built rocket launcher on top of his chook shed, pointed in my direction! Do you think it would be okay if I launch a preemptive mortar attack (I've picked them up from the tank mob, it was a bonus offer) on Stan from my basement? Or do I have to make a formal declaration of war first. What is Shooters and Hooters policy on that one. Just asking.

Well, Paul, that's a new one; I didn't know that Rambo was good at exposing Greens' lies.

Found any lies yet by the S&F Party members in the Upper House?

Found where they've lied to Parliament?

I liked that line in the foreign post '.... with legs'.

Speaking of lies:
http://nsw.greens.org.au/news/nsw/sydney-siege-shows-tougher-gun-laws-needed-now

That lie about the late and unlamented Martin Place terrorist having a valid firearms licence is still up and for your information, Paul, it's up under 'Policies' not 'Press Releases'.
Not surprising though as the Greens' policies are probably mostly lies anyway

Is Mise, The Shooters Party claim their policies are fair and reasonable, that is on big fat lie for a start.
I have consistently pointed out the folly of unrestricted gun laws and the carnage it will bring upon us. Yet all you can reply with is some waffle about a Greens press release, come on, move on.

While I have been waiting for your reply, Stan has launched a preemptive strike of his own, on me. Yes, a drone attack no less, in the form of Stan's 15 year old lay about no good son Roger! Roger jumped the back fence and has decimated my tomato crop. This means WAR! What action do you think I should take, secretly knock the heads off Stan's prized garden gnomes? Just asking.

IS MISE & PAUL1405...

Without question 'unrestricted F/A laws' would prove catastrophic for our society in a number of ways ? Firstly, back in the late fifties and early sixties there were very little controls placed on F/A's. Though in that era we saw the inexorable emergence of Drugs and all they encompass.

Moving through the sixties into the seventies and eighties, were saw the burgeoning growth of organised crime, essentially centred on major drug importation (around that of S.233b of the Customs Act). Many of those organised criminal groups were from abroad, as well as being significantly connected to 'heavy' criminal elements here.

Leonard Arthur MACPHERSON aka MURRAY and ors were most notable, and substantially involved in all manner of drugs, protection, and guns. Particularly, they were closely linked to mafia figures, both from the Reno, Las Vegas and Atlantic City mobs ! If it wasn't for the sharp eyes of a leading Sydney Daily Newspaper, these bastards would have entered Oz, without our knowledge ! The AFP didn't exist in those days, only Compol.

And of course, in the last twenty five or so years, we've got repeated incidences of terrorism, drug importation, organised crime, and much much 'worse'...the darkest, most formidable enemy of all ? A *very weak, politically correct, 'dumb' judiciary* ! A judiciary who seemingly is either too scared, or too 'witless', to understand that meaningful gaol sentences MUST be given for all serious crimes !

And at the end of it all, we have a very disillusioned police 'service', often too nervous to 'come on hard' lest they upset some ridiculous magistrate or magistrate acting in the capacity of Coroner. With possible findings of excessive force etc etc. All this despite the public loudly clamouring for tougher action on ALL crimes of violence !

If F/A laws were relaxed, there'd be significant more F/A incidences recorded, particularly in western and south western Sydney ! I would not advocate tougher F/A laws. Only much tougher vetting and screening of applicants ? Singularly, that of a more comprehensive psychiatric assessment of applicants, is all !

Paul,

Give over, you're just not up to it.
If all that you can point to is a claim, which you dispute, and call it a lie then that's pretty weak.

On the other hand I can prove that the lies that the Greens are guilty of are lies. The proof is in the public record and the lie about Monis is among their policy statements, just go to the site and bring up Policies.
Therefore it is not a press release and even if it were that is no excuse for lying.

o sung wu,

I have never called for unrestricted firearms ownership that is merely Paul's over active imagination.

I remember the days when the police could get on with the job.
I knew 'Bull' Calmann and I'd met 'Bumper' Farrell; a good friend of mine was diverted from his family enterprise of a life of petty crime by Bumper. My mate lived in Darlington and one night as he was "giv'n a bita lip t'th coppers" he ran around a corner and straight into Bumper.
That worthy lifted his feet and trapped the mate by the toes and proceeded to read 'the riot act', pointing out to his captive the errors of his ways and emphasizing each point with a jab of his finger into the mate's chest.

He said the next day that he was black and blue and thought to himself that if Bumper could do that with his index finger, what the hell could he do if he got serious.

So the mate changed his ways and lived a crime free (well almost) life thereafter

Have a deko at this and follow the links, doesn't get much better.
http://www.nramuseum.org/guns.aspx

G'day there IS MISE...

Frank FARRELL was my boss for awhile, and as long as you followed League he was happy, moreover his beloved Newtown, all the better ! If you were silly enough to pursue the 'round' ball game, or worse, Aussie Rules, you'd be working cells for a month ! You may already know, he played against the Poms and Kiwis too, in reality he could've had as much success as a top (test) League player as he was a famous copper !

He had the reputation of being very fair with the troops too, and would always back you, provided your sins were of the more harmless or innocent kind, not the deliberate (corrupt) style. If he found out you'd lied to him, well look out ! Nevertheless he was a good bloke, and thoroughly devoted to his family and his dear missus (Phyllis), and as far as I know lived at the same address for centuries ?

Many thanks for that most interesting link you kindly sent me, I really appreciate it ! The NRA I think, are the most influential, the most powerful organisation of it's type in the world ? With many direct links to Washington ? In fact I've heard it said, there are some members of both the House and the Senate who are only there, because of the immense influence of the NRA. As well as their many prominent and distinguished players who are still currently active, in DC. Very interesting indeed ! Shouldn't there be a clear line of delineation, between politicians and corporate America ? How ever can they possibly believe, they can corporatize a whole National government ?

Is Mise, good to see you have finally moved away from the 'Pakistani Model' and no longer support "unrestricted firearms ownership" highly commendable on your part.
On this issue as on many others the voters of NSW will shorty be given the opportunity to cast a vote for the individual/party they believe best articulates their feelings. If the 2011 result is any indication the Greens are a clear choice over The Shooters Party. In the Legislative Assembly vote the Greens out polled the Shooters by a factor of 182 to 1, that is right, for ever vote cast for The Shooters Party 182 Legislative Assembly votes were cast for The Greens. I would say. when it comes to policy its a no contest!

Official result; 2011 NSW State Election Legislative Assembly.

Shooters 2,346 votes.
Greens 427,144 votes.

Paul,

As the only evidence that you have for my alleged support for the 'Pakistani Model' is your own erroneous suppositions then I must assume that you are modeling your actions on those of David Shoebridge.

The number of votes that the Greens get is merely an indication of how easy it is to mislead some Australian voters.

Surely the hypocrisy of Shoebridge voting for hunting in National Parks will not go unremarked among some of them.

It would be unreasonable to expect that a new party such as the Australian Shooters and Fishers Party (ASP) would be doing any better. They wouldn't be fielding candidates in all seats and nor would they have the wealthy benefactors that are behind the Greens.

The ASP policies would be attractive to the many Australians who prefer reasonableness and practical solutions, civility too.

Incidentally, what links are there between the interfering international billionaire currency dealer's Soros organistion and that anonymous, secret-squirrel 'gun control' site and the Greens, the Trotskyist 'Watermelon' faction in particular?

To answer your question Beach, none at all. That might be the Shooters excuse for failing to score a vote, what's yours and Jim's considering your mob have been around for yonks. Ross was attacking Asians back in the sixties.

The Australian Shooters and Fishers Party (ASP) does have sensible policies that should have broad appeal where voters want a sound, stable option outside of Labor & LNP and have qualms about the intransigence and idealism of the Greens protest party.

Australian Shooters and Fishers Party (ASP)
http://www.shootersandfishers.org.au/

The ASP would be attractive to families and older voters as well I imagine. Many Baby Boomers want to travel within Australia and they are keen on low-cost caravanning and camping. The Greens want to fence off all national parks and reserves, which is un-costed idealism that taxpayers and campers will pay very dearly for indeed. That is if they are allowed to visit reserves anymore.

I have never been associated with any political party or lobby, so you are wasting your slurs on me, Paul1405.

Beach, I don't know about that! You seem to articulate the views of the extreme right at times, to a point of paranoia against the moderate Greens, so I take it you must be associated with such a group of right wing extremest like Australia First. Another poster who's views are some what similar to yours let the cat out of the bag, saying his like minded group, are you also a member of a like minded group?

As for the Shooters Party, they tend to be associated with a single issue, hunting/shooting/camping. You say their policies should appeal to the moderate baby boomers, over 50's section of the community, and it should. The problem being two fold, firstly the "stigma" of being associated with the one issue. Then there is the problem of competing with a number of similar parties aiming for moderate appeal, including The Christian Democrats, Family First, along with numerous micro parties. At the same time the two major parties also offer moderate appeal, not surprising as moderate voters form by far the biggest voting block.
Then there is the reality of finance and membership numbers, one of the reasons PUP did so well in the Senate was the fact they were able to contest every lower house seat, maximizing their Senate vote.
The Greens have moved beyond the micro party status, it has taken 20 years. The party has a broad membership base, and has moved well away from the single issue of the environment alone, but still retaining its core principles. The Greens defiantly articulates an alternative to the majors on all manor of issues. The party gets very good media coverage, a necessity in this day and age of TV politics. All this helps to foster broad based appeal. I will admit, the Greens is not the party for everyone, no party is, the Democrats tried that some years back and failed badly, Labor also had a go at it and lost direction. The Greens are reasonably well financed, which is a necessity in these days of expensive politics. .

Maybe the Shooters' and Fishers' should start lying,
seems to help the Greens.
Maybe they could also have wacky policies like requiring farmers to use combination locks, instead of the Government approved ones, on their gun lockers/chests.

The Shooters and Fishers Party are eminently sensible, practical and have consideration for costs in their policies.

I was quite impressed for instance by the work they have put into their "Fair Recreational Access" policy for Crown land that was always set aside as parks for the public, not to wall out the public so a few rangers and their invitees could selfishly enjoy them.

http://www.shootersandfishers.org.au/files/1/206476483/recreational-access-19-oct.-2013-.pdf

There are thousands of Grey Nomads who have worked their hearts out for Australia in their jobs, raising families and in community service. They have paid taxes all of their lives. If in their final years they want to gradually tour the country they supported and likely fought for as well, they should be able to do that.

Likewise families should be able to go camping as their parents and grandparents did. Young people should be able to car trip and backpack too and basic facilities should be provided.

I would have to say that young families, student backpackers and grey nomads would be foolish to cast a vote for the Greens, who for political convenience have thrown their lot in with the fat cats of the National Parks and Wildlife service to create a monster department to gobble up all local, State and federal agencies with a stake in stock routes and so on.

The NPWS has a very poor record in controlling feral pests and weeds. The very last thing the public would want is more registration and pre-booking to travel anywhere and more fees. It is becoming like some Communist country where you are obliged to get prior approval to go anywhere and have to carry papers. Except the greens and NPWS have the public paying for the privilege and require stickers on windscreens as well. It is double and triple taxing and it encourages people to tour overseas instead.

The greens and NPWS are spoilers who see the public as their enemy.