Since the awful events that occurred in Martin Place recently, there's been much, much discussion concerning our 'rights' as responsible adults, to carry a 'weapon' of sorts, in order to defend ourselves against a violent attack.

Personally, I'd NOT choose to carry a weapon of any sort, for the purposes of self-defence. But that's me, just a silly ol' coot ?

Firstly, (in principle) do any of you agree with this proposition ? If not, why not ?

Initially - Should 'ANY' screening measures be undertaken, 'prior' to an applicant being granted a, (licence 'application') - Criminal/Psychological ? Isn't everyone entitled to protect themselves from a violent attack ?

However, if your answer is in the affirmative, how do we (the government) determine what types of weapons should be authorised ? And in what mode should they be carried ? *In full view of the public ? or, *Completely concealed ?

A synopsis of weapons under review might include, but not limited too;

*Firearms (F/A's),
*Edged weapons,
*Impact weapons,
*Chemical Incapacitants,
*Electronic Immobilizers,
*and variations of the above.

and;

And what are your thoughts on the 'limitations' that government might place on these weapons, together with those who possess them ? And what levels of instruction should be mandated, before being granted, a licence ?

*Training schedule - including successfully completing a exam.
*Legal obligations,
*Storage & safekeeping,
*Inspection requirements.

I've raised this Topic purely to give everybody who's interested, some space to articulate their thoughts and views on a very 'touchy' 'controversial' subject. In response to the recent events that have occurred, both here in Oz and abroad. There's no 'right or wrong' views or opinions. It's merely a discussion, nothing more. I'd very much appreciate, hearing from our ladies, as I've no doubt they will substantially enrich such a discussion !

Since the topic is so touchy, lets begin with allowing good people to have weapons in their own homes and businesses, for self-defence. There should be minimum requirements to ensure that weapons do not fall in the hands of criminals, but at least the requirements for being allowed to keep a weapon at home should be lower than the requirements for carrying a weapon in public.

Frankly, I would leave the discussion about the exact requirements to those who are more expert than myself.

Personally, I too would never choose to carry a firearm, though some good sword or dagger under the bed can be reassuring. However, I could certainly benefit from the fact that burglars wouldn't know for sure that I don't have a firearm at home, which is another good example why anonymity in this forum is important.

Thank you YUYUTSU...

For starting the topic, I wasn't sure if anyone would be interested in such a controversial subject, given the events of the past year, and the emergence of this damned ISIL group of thugs.

I expect there would be many who would welcome the ability to lawfully possess a means of protecting themselves, their loved ones, and of course their property ? You speak of a good sword or dagger under the bed, and I appreciate your thoughts. However such implements might prove quite ineffective or inadequate to protect yourself or others from an attack. But may well intimidate a thief from stealing from you, is all ? Crims. who enter your dwelling in order to hurt you, or your family, are generally armed. Still... ?

Thanks YUYUTSU.

This is an awkward topic, given that for the time being Australia is one of the safest countries in the world, the idea that people need to carry a weapon for protection is very foreign.

I can imagine that in some other countries this is totally necessary or even hirer bodyguards.

The problem with weapons is that it is possible for the offender to use that weapon against the person who intended to use it for protection.

I should add some regular items can be used for protection. Hair spray instead of mace.

Car keys held a certain way can do a lot of damage to an offender.

Hi there WOLLY B...

You're so right when you say how safe we are compared to other countries ? I couldn't imagine there'd come a day when we all had to pack a F/A ? In fact I had to carry the damn thing for the past 32 years at work, and they can become very uncomfortable to wear, either in a shoulder rig or on the belt ? Add handcuffs, a couple of speed loaders, and you walk around all day with your knuckles almost dragging along the ground, such is the weight.

Your comments on having your weapon taken from you during a struggle is very valid indeed. In fact so serious is it, Command have directed all police recruits undertake a process called 'Handgun Retention', an active counter measure, in order to stop a crook attempting to take your F/A, (disarm you) during a struggle ? A highly dynamic response, but generally quite effective nevertheless ? Thank you WOLLY B.

"The problem with weapons is that it is possible for the offender to use that weapon against the person who intended to use it for protection"

Why would the offender need to do that? Offenders plan their attack and the tools they require.

You can bet that offenders have already looked you and your assets over and it is only luck or more likely, that the offenders have found better options that has saved you.

The real problem is that laws prevent honest people from doing what they don't intend to do anyway. Laws don't affect offenders because it is part of the modus operandi of the offender to break laws. They are law breakers, right?

Possession of a 'weapon' (inverted commas because the police have considerable leeway in what they can charge you with) doesn't make the ordinary law-abiding citizen into a likely offender any more than possessing a pair of panty hose makes a woman into a potential burglar.

The police are there to enforce the law. That means giving tickets and arresting alleged wrongdoers. Police react to crimes that have already taken place. Hollywood has them doing much more. -Particularly arriving in the nick of time to save the stereotypical woman victim. Is that going to happen for you in real life?

I am not arguing the case for weapons. However I would very much like to see withdrawn the unfair reversed onus of proof that re-victimises victims who sought to defend themselves and their loved ones. NSW has already acted on that. What about the rest of Australia?

Just for starters I carry a walking stick and have studied Indian Stick Fighting techniques.

However I only carry the stick for health reasons, my back gives out at odd moments and I study Stick fighting as a sport.
see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stick-fighting

To carry a walking stick for self defence, even against stray dogs, is a criminal offence.

I certainly think that firearms should be allowed for defence in the home and that trusted and trained individuals should be allowed to carry concealed pistols if they so desire.

We would not know who was carrying a gun when we are in public,
someone mentioned on another thread, that they wouldn't like to be sitting in a cafe where someone might be armed; they have no means of knowing that they are not next to an illegally armed person anywhere in public.
If there are illegal pistols then there are people carrying them.

Good for you Is Mise, but for me, my knee would make any attempt at self defence pretty useless. No for me the only defence must be with something I can use at a distance, & really, while sitting down.

As for this furphy of someone taking a gun off the owner, that could only happen to a squeamish type, who did not use the thing when they should. To quote a mates favourite saying, " "Keep calm, relax, focus on the problem & PULL THE BLOODY TRIGGER". This is the right advice for anyone threatened with a home invasion, probably the only threat most of us may experience. The first sound any invader should hear is the gun discharging.

In my area, where homes are well spread, & we would be lucky to have one cop car covering 5000 square kilometres at night, outside help is highly unlikely. You either give an invader no chance at all, or anything they want, & hope to survive.

Another bit of advice I've had, if you really want the cops, don't report you have an intruder, report you may have shot an intruder.

That will get response quick time won't it o sung wu? My friendly local Sargent reckoned it would. Probably a little trouble too, but some action tonight, rather than tomorrow, if that's what you need.

Where I live, in a country town, there is no resident policeman at the Police Station although there are police living in the town.

If someone rushes at night to the station for help there is a phone button by the front door and that puts one in contact with the Local Area Command who, if they think that it is warranted will call the nearest patrol car (which could be miles away) or will get a local Constable out of bed.
If one is ringing from home then the car or the constable will be summoned; if it's the constable then he/she must first go to the Police Station and get their pistol out of security before further responding to the call.

Bad luck if some home invader is breaking down the door.

The Americans must be living in diabolical fear when you have to carry a loaded gun in your handbag while in a supermarket.
When everybody is carrying a gun would not that equal out the advantage of having a gun.
Leave guns for wars they need the ammo.
Carrying a gun must mean you have intent on using it. That is probably why it is illegal.
I can't see it ever becomming a common comodity in AU, as yet we are not living in fear, so what would be the purpose.
American gun laws were put in place for cowboys, and still cater for them.
Self defence is the purpose, self defence of what, there are always a few rouge magpies at certain times of year, i suppose that could count.

"We may find in the long run that tinned food is a deadlier weapon than the machine-gun."
-George Orwell

Leonard Cohen - First We Take Manhattan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTTC_fD598A

My father had some rifles, and I think I was around 5 years of age when I found where he hid them. Fortunately the rifle I found was too heavy for me to lift.

I however did find some ammunition, taking one bullet, out under the clothes line and hitting it with a hammer, It took two attempts hitting either end before it went bang.

As soon as it went bang I was off and over a 6 foot wooden fence, faster than a mountain goat. Fully expecting my mother to come storming out the house, as she didn't appear, it was safe to climb back down and get rid of the evidence and scrub the black powder mark off the concrete.

The only safe way with hand guns, with children who are as investigative as myself when I was a child, is not to have one in the house.

My heart bleeds every time I read about children accidentally shooting other children or one of their parents.

579,

One wonders why the Government bothered with:

"CRIMES (HOME INVASION) AMENDMENT ACT 1994 No. 84
NEW SOUTH WALES"
http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/num_act/ciaa1994n84321.pdf

and why these reports exist
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sydneys-violent-home-invasions-and-the-ice-factor-20111026-1mjrc.html

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/home-invasions-the-new-fad/story-fn6b3v4f-1226311651859

http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/agdbasev7wr/bocsar/documents/pdf/mr_cjb31.pdf

Dear 579,

You wrote;

“The Americans must be living in diabolical fear when you have to carry a loaded gun in your handbag while in a supermarket.”

I think this was this incident to which you may be referring;

Quote;

A mother has been shot dead by her two-year-old son in a tragic accident at a supermarket in northern Idaho.
Veronica J. Rutledge, 29, was shopping at Walmart with her toddler and three other children when the boy reached into her handbag and her gun went off.
Mrs Rutledge, who was from Blackfoot in southeastern Idaho, had come to the town of Hayden – about 40 miles northeast of Spokane, Washington – to visit relatives.
She had a concealed-weapons permit.
"The child was, looks like to be sitting in the shopping cart with the purse while the female victim was shopping," said Stu Miller from the Kootenai County Sheriff's Office.

End quote

I do not want this for my country.

All good and well until the drunken new years party when the family dramas get a little bit too out of hand. Now its just a punch up and maybe call the cops. But add a readily accessible gun (which it must be or it is useless for self defence) and it is uncle Johnny in the meat wagon and cousin Phil is going to the big house for a long long time.

Not to mention Aunty Mary and her periodic bouts of depression and suicidal thoughts. Up till now its been a few pills or maybe a slash of the wrists. Easily caught and remedied and after a few days treatment she is usually back to normal. But with that gun nearby next time its bang and society mourns another mental health failure.

Not to mention as someone earlier pointed out, children are boundless in their curiosity and mischievousness and will always find a way to get themselves into harmful situations. Where it involves a firearm the results can be catastrophic.

Lastly there is very little evidence that people with guns ever use them in self defence. It is just a lie that gun nuts use to try to justify their sick,idiotic,macho obsession with loud and powerful penis substitutes.

I remember seeing the following poster in the
US a few decades ago:

"IN 1980, HANDGUNS KILLED
77 PEOPLE IN JAPAN.
8 IN GREAT BRITAIN.
24 IN SWITZERLAND.
8 IN CANADA.
23 IN ISRAEL.
18 IN SWEDEN.
4 IN AUSTRALIA.
11,522 IN THE UNITED STATES.

GOD BLESS AMERICA."

Then there was a picture of a handgun with the
American Flag draped over it and the words -

"Stop handgun-crime before it stops you,"
underneath it.

I don't want this sort of problem in my country.

@SteeleRedux,

First off I must reaffirm that I do not have an oar in the water as far as concealed carry is concerned. My earlier post states my concerns.

Even if you are unaware of it, other posters should instantly recognise your argument as the whopping great fallacy that it is. Doubtless you would argue that the crowing of the rooster causes the sun to rise as well.

The contributor to the single and doubtless rare accident (its very uncommonness made it newsworthy) was the foolishness of 'concealed carry' in a handbag. Particularly where the unthinking person put the bag where others, in this case a minor, could access it.

-So it is a human error. The same sort of unnecessary, unthinking human error that can cause a parent to reverse a vehicle over a child. A child to remain in a vehicle unattended, especially where the keys are available. Or someone to be electrocuted by allowing a hair drier to be used in a wet environment.

Enough said, but I daresay more infants have been crushed to death by TVs and other heavy objects. -To get up, the child grabs the doily the TV is resting on and the crush death is made certain by the inability to utter a sound with it on her chest. Plenty of instances of serious harm and death in homes, but not 'sexy' news stories, not the 'shock, horror' the dumbed-down audiences enjoy.

@mikk,

The sort of people you are talking about don't apply for and nor would they get a firearms licence. However they already have access to other means to cause affray and harm. They probably have their illegal weapons anyhow.

Since the Howard inspired 'gun control' was only intended to inconvenience the soft target legal, licensed owners who don't commit the crimes anyhow, your rhetoric rings hollow. The rad fem reference to 'penis substitutes' was always ridiculous. That alone would question your credibility and motivation.

@ Foxy, Saturday, 3 January 2015 12:53:25 PM

Good Lord, are you channeling a Xerox or something? Because you constantly regurgitate and broken-record the same old, same old fodder entirely oblivious to the replies of the very patient (and admittedly some not so patient anymore) posters who sought to correct you on the previous multiple occasions.

Just one not-so-minor fact that you already know is fatal to your tricky rhetoric is that almost all gun crime and serious violence in the US is black on black, involving gangs and is drug related. The second hump in the crime statistics is Hispanic.

Might as well say that is multiculturalism for you. Far more evidence for drawing that conclusion than the obviously fallacious and misleading one you are inferring.

Dear SteeleRedux,

The facts speak for themselves.
Most countries do severely restrict private handgun
ownership, however in the United States there
are handguns in the millions, and weapons of this
type are used in the thousands of
murders that occur each year. The United States is an
extremely violent society, with a homicide rate far
exceeding that of any other industrialised nation.
A single American city like Chicago, Houston or
Los Angeles records more murders in a typical year
than does the whole of England, where even the police
do not normally carry guns.

We need to ask why then does the United States permit
such a widespread access to handguns?

I've stated this previously that one persistent belief
is that, since criminals have guns, law-abiding
citizens need them for self-protection.

Actually, gun-owning hosueholds are much more likely to
suffer fatalities from their own weapons than from those
of outsiders - as incidents have shown us in the past.
One study found that only 2 per cent 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.

A second reason for the proliferation of handguns is the
belief, deeply held by many Americans, that gun ownership
is an individual right.

For granting this liberty to the individual, as I've stressed
time and time again, American society pays the price in the
deviance of those who abuse it.

It's too high a price for us to pay in this country.
In my opinion.

I hope some of you are sitting down,

Foxy I support your latest post.

Foxy, "American society pays the price in the deviance of those who abuse it"

You must be referring to the deviance directly consequential to diversity of a multicultural society. My post above refers.

The political 'Progressives' aka International Socialists are being confronted with the negative consequences of their policies. 'Gun culture' as the cause of all of that black and Hispanic violence? Bollocks!

What you and other leftist (not real Left by a long shot!) 'Progressives' are doing with your politically correct rhetoric is muddying of the waters and preventing any real independent investigation of drugs, gangs and black violence. That hurts the many people who just happen to be of black or Hispanic extraction, are decent law-abiding people themselves and desperately seek relief from the gang violence and drugs that surround them.

Obama played politics and nothing has changed.

Rhode Island has a self-defense law based on the castle doctrine and is a “stand your ground” state, meaning crime victims do not have a duty to retreat before using physical or deadly force against attackers. The law extends the right of self-defense from the home to any place a victim has a lawful right to be.

The state’s statute reads:

In the event that any person shall die or shall sustain a personal injury in any way or for any cause while in the commission of any criminal offense enumerated in §§ 11-8-2 – 11-8-6, it shall be rebuttably presumed as a matter of law in any civil or criminal proceeding that the owner, tenant, or occupier of the place where the offense was committed acted by reasonable means in self-defense and in the reasonable belief that the person engaged in the criminal offense was about to inflict great bodily harm or death upon that person or any other individual lawfully in the place where the criminal offense was committed. There shall be no duty on the part of an owner, tenant, or occupier to retreat from any person engaged in the commission of any criminal offense enumerated in

Thanks to all who've consented to respond to this Topic. Each and everyone of your arguments are valid, and none are either right or wrong answers.

Just a couple of comments if I may;

It's a universally teaching, if one carries a concealable (licenced) F/A, for your own protection, it must be locked 'n loaded as the saying goes. Otherwise why carry it ?

If one possess a F/A, and a serious threat becomes apparent; Only draw that weapon 'if' you have the intention to use it. This dictum is taught to all police in training.

A situation where a person or police draws their F/A threatening someone with being shot, if they fail to abstain from whatever unlawful act they're participating in, is a folly, and leaves the person re police officer at a tactical disadvantage. There's only 'ONE' circumstance where anyone, including police can fire at another person;

If that person is under an 'immediate attack', and is in danger of being seriously injured or killed ! Alternatively; Another person, is under an 'immediate attack' and in danger of being seriously injured or killed, also ?

That threat must be 'real and impending', not 'doubtful or remote' ? Therefore if it's possible to 'withdraw or escape' from that impending threat, it's been held, it remains no longer lawful to shoot that assailant, because the 'attack' is no longer 'real or impending' !

This legal standard applies to 'EVERYONE', police included. Disregard that 'standard' at your own risk ? However there are other circumstances and legal arguments that may raise exculpatory evidence as a defence. The 'Doctrine of Proportionality' is such an example.

Simply, if any of us chose to carry a (licenced) concealed F/A - well it's a veritable minefield, and the lawyers will have an amazingly good payday. Moreover crooks don't bother with these impediments, or any other law that may constrain their activities. After all it's redundant nonsense to them ! It's only the law abiding citizens that seem to harbour any real concern about the legalities of their actions ?

IS MISE I have the perfect response to your comments associated with your; 'Crimes (Homes Invasion) Amendment Act, 1994 No 84 NSW'. That mutual friend of yours ? A Mr Ithaca 37DS POL SPEC. with his several children, 12g and the daughter, 'Flechettes' A sight to behold in Vietnam ! These cowardly 'home invaders' wouldn't like to meet that family on a dark night, me thinks ?

Hello there FOXY...

I don't believe it's the handgun, the rifle or shotgun that's the real question, nor is it the regulatory controls imposed upon each category of F/A ? Rather it's more the various modifications that can be so easily achieved by criminals, that's the real concern amongst legislators and authorities ? There are dozens of backyard armourers who can easily shorten a barrel, remove a stock, literally shorten a weapon right down to a concealable piece ? These measures mean only one thing, the weapon's going to be used in the commission of a crime !

It's a good paying hobby, is a backyard armourer. And if you have sufficient skills, and can completely remove all traces of a serial number, well the weapon is worth even more ! In my years in the job, BEFORE the advent of Port Arthur and the tougher F/A laws, any boofhead I caught with a shortened F/A went down for it. Usually on conspiracy to commit a felony in the old days ? You simply can't furnish a satisfactory answer to a Court as to why you've a shortened F/A in your possession, during hours of darkness as an example !

Ask any copper - All departmental resources should be targeted at licencing the 'applicant' (the person), not so much the F/A. Sure particulars of a F/A is useful. 'Full data' on the licence holder is essential.

eg...

Criminal profile;
Psychological profile;
Medical profile;
Vocational profile;
VALID 'reason's' for a licence to possess F/A's.

You could well argue, most of those enquiries are commensurate with breaching an individuals privacy ? Authorities MUST preserve an individual's privacy. If you wish to have a F/A, why worry, what's there to hide ?

Governments must preserve public safety, it's that simple really.

Dear O Sung Wu,

I disagree.

As stated previously most other countries severely
restrict private handgun ownership. but there are
at least in the many millions of handguns in the United
States - and weapons of this type are used in
a very large percentage of the murders that occur
each year. In the 1990s, the
American handgun homicide rate was heaps of times the
average rate for England, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland,
Australia, Israel, and Canada combined.

We don't want to go down in that direction and permit
the widespread access to handguns in this country.
As I stated earlier - that's only my opinion.
I shall leave you to yours.

Cheers.

This happen 24 hours ago.

Quote;

ATLANTA (AP) — A police chief in Georgia told a 911 dispatcher he accidentally shot his wife while moving a handgun that was in their bed, according to a recording released Friday.
Peachtree City police Chief William McCollom called for help at 4:17 a.m. New Year's Day and reported accidentally shooting his 58-year-old wife, Margaret. The Associated Press obtained a recording of the call Friday through an open records request. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation is looking into the shooting.
McCollom spoke calmly in the audio recording, telling a dispatcher he needed medical help for an accidental gunshot wound at his suburban home, about 30 miles southwest of Atlanta.
"Who shot her?" the dispatcher asked.
"Me," McCollom said. "The gun was in the bed, I went to move it, and I put it to the side and it went off."
During the call, McCollom said his wife was having difficulty breathing and appeared to be suffering from both internal and external bleeding. She was flown by helicopter to Atlanta Medical Center, where she was listed in critical condition Thursday.
End quote

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/02/william-mccollom_n_6407880.html

It will interesting to hear our resident churlish poster explain this in terms of; “single and doubtless rare accident”, “foolishness “, “unthinking person”. This was a police veteran.

SteelRedux,

You are highly emotional, not the scientific sort at all. Otherwise you might not always be guilty of researcher error - where you cherry-pick to find the evidence to support your own opinions.

Just think a bit though. Difficult, but do try hard. Now, would you say that police accidentally shooting their wives is usual?

Most people would say no.

Incidents like that are newsworthy because they are very, very uncommon and are reported to (regrettably) titillate a dumbed-down audience who can then act shocked and disgusted, "Aint it awful", and feel almost alive for a fleeting instant.

@Foxy, Saturday, 3 January 2015 4:05:12 PM

Still ducking that not-so-insignificant matter of who commits those gun crimes in the US, eh? My earlier post refers,

onthebeach, Saturday, 3 January 2015 1:30:18 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6689&page=4

Steele Redux,

So what?

The cause of the accident was carelessness or a faulty pistol or he pulled the trigger.

Seems to be on the same footing as accidentally dropping the hair dryer in the wife's bath.

Foxy,

The USA is number one on the list of private gun ownership but doesn't come anywhere near first in firearm murders.

"The key facts are:

• The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world - an average of 88 per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership - and even the number two country, Yemen, has significantly fewer - 54.8 per 100 people
• But the US does not have the worst firearm murder rate - that prize belongs to Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica. In fact, the US is number 28, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people
• Puerto Rico tops the world's table for firearms murders as a percentage of all homicides - 94.8%. It's followed by Sierra Leone in Africa and Saint Kitts and Nevis in the Caribbean"
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

Dear onthebeach,

Lol.

Ah the Echidna defense. Crawl up into a little ball and put the spikes out.

Come on mate, you accuse me of research error when there was none, all I did was quote a couple of recent examples, then you offer nothing in return. At least Is Mise had the fortitude to front up with some statistics. Silly me I actually thought you might have finally decided to forego the usual snide retorts, the churlish attacks, the bullying and done the unthinkable, provide something of substance to support your contentions.

But alas nothing.

Oh well. Let me have a go.

Unintentional gun deaths in Australia in 2011 was .05 per 100,000 people. In the US the figure was .30. That is 6 times the rate. Why would anyone want that here?

By the way their suicide rate by gun was 6.3 per 100,000 compared to .63 here. Yup that's right 10 times the rate.

Who makes up the bulk of those figures in the US? Whites. Both white men and women are nearly three times as likely to commit suicide than non-hispanic Black people.

FOXY...

I'm sorry, I was NOT advocating Handgun ownership or any other firearm configuration for that matte at all. I was simple offering a suggestion, in relation to what 'I'd like to see' (personally) the authorities do, apropos anyone who wishes to possess any F/A ! Of ANY configuration or style. Obviously you didn't quite understand what it was I wrote ?

You can rest easy anyway, I don't believe any government of any political persuasion, will at anytime ease or relax, the existing F/A laws. If anything they will more likely seek to strengthen them usually by stealth !

As a side issue, you may be surprised to hear that governments rarely seek either, specialised police or military advice whenever they intend to strengthen, widen or amend, existing F/A laws, or the regulations attendant to those Laws ? Why, I don't really know ?

Other then on several occasions, I was required to provide certain assistance to government, concerning some technical issues involving a very popular centre-fire carbine. Interestingly the advice I gave, they nominated to do the exact opposite ? Furthermore, this was after I sought supporting evidence from the US Manufacturer, confirming the efficacy of my advice ?

As a result, a weapon that clearly should've been banned as a 'Prohibited Import' for other than military or law-enforcement use, pursuant to the Customs Act, 'flip flopped' around, for an eternity until common sense finally prevailed, and as the say it's now history ! I might add many ordinary, legitimate licenced shooters, had expended their 'hard earned' buying this carbine in good faith, only to have it confiscated when the new F/A laws received assent ?

Another example of political ignorance and stupidity ! It's little wonder ordinary people have so little faith in the system ?

Concerning F/A safety. All F/A's are dangerous if handled carelessly or in the hands of untrained individuals. And accidents do happen, with F/A's as with motor vehicles, boats, aircraft, whatever example you choose to cite ? Errors are made, they shouldn't have, but they do ? To identify F/A's specifically or particularly, serves no good purpose, other than to endeavour, NOT to make the same mistake twice.

Even those highly trained individuals in a Rifle Company (Army) have accidents, some by misadventure, carelessness, even being 'over-familiar' with their weapon. You can name any circumstance, it'll generally happen ! Neither are F/A's forgiving ? F/A's by their very nature are dangerous ! Furthermore all Firearms should be treated as if they're 'LOADED' !.

Claims that, by allowing more F/A's to be licenced and kept in homes, will only serve to increase the number of suicides with a gun ? I'm really not sure of this ? I don't have any figures, to prove or disprove that claim ? All that I can say, I've attended many suicides in my time, and yes F/A's have been used in some, but in my experience I've found many more males who've hanged themselves, and females who've overdosed, than anyone else collectively, using a F/A ?

It should be further noted, whenever a F/A enters the equation, it seems to provoke the media into some sort of manic frenzy ? It seems to almost 'spice up' any story if guns are involved in some way !

My only wish, when they were in the process of 'framing' the new F/A laws, post Port Arthur, if all states and the federal government, had taken much more attention and advice from police ? After all, at the end of the day, it's the police who have to 'enforce, monitor and regulate' the new Act, as well as becoming the effective conduit between the public and government. It's the police who are better placed to detect any deficiencies, anomalies or oversights of the new Act, but of course the government new better ?

Shots fired into home of truckie

See: www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/.../story-fni0cx12-1227167390354

www.dailytelegraph.com.au/...court.../story-fni0cx12-1227116806780

Don't defend yourself in NSW.

SteeleRedux,

LOL, off you go again with false comparison and researcher error.

It has already been demonstrated from US government statistics that gun crime is largely black on black, followed by Hispanic and is directly linked with gangs and drugs.

That being so it is entirely possible that the unintentional gun deaths in the US would also share the same characteristics. You then ask, "Why would anyone want that here?". A very reasonable reply to you is the simple, obvious one: be proactive and don't walk into similar social problems that have divided the US.

Suicide
The most popular method is hanging, the rope. Ban ropes?

In Australia, firearms were never popular for suicide. You say that in Australia the very small numbers who suicided by firearm dropped. What you don't admit because it is inconvenient to your emotional rhetoric, is that overall suicide rate was unaffected. The very few who might have used a firearm were undeterred and used another method.

How will these very sad people ever hope for help from people such as yourself, who would divert attention and resources away from research and assistance, to blame the method instead (and doubtless for political reasons too).

Again, I am not arguing for one side or the other. However I am concerned that taxpayers' money not be wasted through the highly questionable, in fact BS, of PC myths such as 'gun control' that focusses on the law abiding and takes police resources away from collaring criminals (and terrorists!).

Dear O Sung Wu,

Thank You for clarifying your stance on this
issue.

Dear SteeleRedux,

Here are more statistics ...
They speak for themselves - and why we should not
follow the "American Way," in this country.

My husband and I lived and worked in the United States
for close to ten years (in Los Angeles). One of our
relatives was a senior officer in the LAPD (Los Angeles Police Department).
We experienced things first-hand and there is no way that
we would ever want to see gun ownership in this country
reach the levels that it has in the US. Here's the
reason why:

"The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world
and the highest per capita rate of firearm related murder
of all developed countries:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/gun-homicides-ownership/table/

The following link is also relevant:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/feature/wp/2013/03/22/gun-deaths-shaped-by-race-in-america/

All you have 'proved' Foxy is that there are serious social problems in the US that directly correlate with race and specifically to blacks and Hispanics.

Of course it is quite impossible for a poster who is constantly demanding that Australia be diversified until the 'whites' disappear forever, to accept that the US experience and one could add the experience of other countries, is that the social experiment of endless diversification and multiculturalism being implemented in Australia is fraught with dangers.

That is not to say that all migration is bad. However it would be prudent for the federal government to urgently contract some internationally recognised and independent consultants to conduct a comprehensive audit of immigration policy and administration, and at the same time produce a comprehensive risk analysis of migration.

The public should not be holding out much hope of that, because the urgent review of corruption in the responsible federal department has not eventuated.

Suicide
There is no need to look to US speculative modelling when Australia has the practical record to go by:

first, the Howard-inspired 'gun control' was misconceived and misdirected. Even its supporters cannot show any appreciable effect in reducing crime, especially violent crime; and,

secondly, there is no evidence whatsoever that 'gun control' had any positive effect on the overall number of suicides.

There are programs already existing in Australia, which was one of the first countries to implement a national program. See here,

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/mental-nsps

It is a constant fight to base policy and programs on evidence and to get recognition for the splendid work being done.

All people like Foxy are doing is muddying the waters to serve some undisclosed secondary agenda, personal or political.

Foxy,

""The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world
and the highest per capita rate of firearm related murder
of all developed countries:"

Limiting the rates to developed countries is elitist and proves nought.

The highest murder rates in the world are in South America where there are some of the most stringent gun laws.

Go figure.

Dear Is Mise,

The relationship between gun legislation, or lack of,
and gun violence is important - and as Australia is a
developed country it is right and fair to compare
it to other developed countries, particularly
the US which has the highest gun ownership rate in
the world and the highest per capita rate of fire-arm
related murders of all developed countries.

As far as Latin America goes - that is a totally different
scenario. Their weak judicial institutions, criminalised
police, a heavy gang presence, drug trafficking, and their
organised crime presence makes things difficult. Therefore
the relationship between gun legislation and gun violence
becomes even murker if another factor is thrown into the
mix, that of gun availability.

Arms trafficking is a major illicit industry in the region.
Trafficking is difficult to control, even with prohibitive
gun measures in place.

Cheers.

I think the government should have to give all us ex defence force personal our weapons to take home with us when we retire.

That way the most effective weapons would be in the hands of the most useful people.

If I'd had my old rocket equipped jet fighter available, I could have resolved that Martin Place siege situation quick time.

Hell even a Bren gun would have done.

Dear Is Mise,

Here's what our former Prime Minister had to
say about gun control - concerning both
this country and the United States:

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2014/s4151092.htm

'Gun control' in Australia is very murky swamp indeed.

'Gun control' is an internet site, which unlike any reputable site categorically refuses to divulge any information about itself. Specifically its backers, membership (said to be one or two persons in public employment, with access to a fax and phone) and sources and distribution of funds (it has a begging bowl always out). In fact none of the usual information is available at all. Strangely, it is strictly not open to membership. -Although it seeks to record and use the contact details of any person foolish enough to volunteer the information sought.

It is alleged that one of the key few figures, a woman, has been associated with the shadowy Soros Foundation in the US, which in turn is alleged to be provide seed funds for leftist groups to conduct protests in other countries like Australia.

What Soros the billionaire currency dealer - who was reputed to have nearly sent the Bank of England broke (risking the small life savings of mums and dads investors) and was convicted of insider trading by France - wants with leftists activists one might only imagine.

Some here may be aware that the said gun control 'organisation' (as said already - an impressive title, phone, fax and just a few activists) - recently refused to provide any details to a Senate Committee, where its spokesperson was in complete disarray, with conflicting claims and no evidence to back it up.

-Yet the media, especially the taxpayer-funded ($1,4 billion of it!) national broadcaster, are in the habit of quoting gun control 'spokesperson/s' and without inviting any other opinion to balance! Isn't it time the 'fact-checking' ABC asked a few pertinent questions of 'gun control' about itself and its domestic and international links to properly inform the public? It is in the ABC's brief to do so.

Australians do not appreciate interference in domestic politics and society by shadowy interests and that would apply to overseas billionaires, if that is occurring.

Oh dear onthebeach,

There really isn't a lot of substance to you is there.

When people do some research and present figures to you call them poor researchers but you never offer anything up yourself. In some ways this might be viewed as parasitic behaviour but ultimately it is a little sad.

If you don't have the skills or knowledge to find information to back up what you are saying then perhaps being a little more circumspect when inflicting the rest of us with your ignorant and silly claims might be advisable. Take o sung wu, he and I do not see eye to eye but he will readily admit on occasion to not having a great understanding on a particular issue, something I respect.

Cont..

Cont..

But hell I'm on holiday so let's go through some of your offerings.

You wrote;

“What you don't admit because it is inconvenient to your emotional rhetoric, is that overall suicide rate was unaffected. The very few who might have used a firearm were undeterred and used another method.”

Firstly since the gun laws after Port Arthur suicide rates full stop have dramatically decreased, in some age groups by over 50%.
http://www.mindframe-media.info/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/9986/Suicide-Figures-2014.pdf

Further firearm related suicides have dropped far more significantly than non-firearm suicides.

“In the decade following the NFA, there has been a substantial drop in
firearm deaths in Australia (Figures 1a and 1b). Firearm suicides have
dropped from 2.2 per 100,000 people in 1995 to 0.8 per 100,000 in
2006. Firearm homicides have dropped from 0.37 per 100,000 people in
1995 to 0.15 per 100,000 people in 2006. These are drops of 65% and
59%, respectively, and among a population of 20 million individuals,
represent a decline in the number of deaths by firearm suicide of about
300 and in the number of deaths by firearm homicide of about 40 per
year. At the same time, the non-firearm suicide rate has fallen by 27%
and the non-firearm homicide rate by 59%.”
http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/gunbuyback_panel.pdf

The leading cause of gun death in the US is not 'black gang' inflicted but is suicide.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerkay/2013/01/22/who-knew-the-leading-cause-of-gun-death-is-suicide/

As whites are nearly twice as likely to commit suicide then unless you can show otherwise it is safe to say they literally and proportionately make up the bulk of gun related deaths in the US.
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/suicide/statistics/rates01.html

Now how about parking the unsubstantiated mantras and stop being a parasite feeding off other posters research and produce some of your own. I have my doubts you are capable of it but surprise me.

SteelRedux,

Australia
Gun crime in Australia was trending down before and after Howard and at the same rate.

Howard's gun control has never been proved to have had any appreciable positive effect in reducing gun offences.

Suicide

Your claim that Howard's 'gun control' saved potential suicides is absolute rot. I have covered that previously.

Just to repeat for others who may not read back some posts, the number of people who suicide by firearm was always very low, especially compared with other preferred methods. Suicide by vehicle for example isn't even factored in. The number who suicide with a firearm is so small that your claims are ludicrous. Where 'N' is low, a small change either way is not significant and shouldn't be reported as such.

Such frivolous, misleading and politically motivated claims - that 'gun control' prevents suicide - detract from the superb work of the many highly skilled and earnest professionals and volunteers involve in the national suicide initiative.

Re my last para above, I was in a rush and should have referred to 'The National Suicide Prevention Strategy (NSPS)'

- "(which) provides the platform for Australia's national policy on suicide prevention with an emphasis on promotion, prevention and early intervention" http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/mental-nsps

Hi FOXY...

I read your citation from the 'National', an insert of the 'Washington Post' newspaper. A lengthy article dealing with F/A's and suicide(s) using a F/A ?

Specifically, the interview dealt with a Mr & Mrs James & Janett MASSOLO, who lost their daughter (Shannon) from her suicide, with a F/A they'd kept in their house ?

The curious, or rather the strange part of the article that I couldn't quite understand, the gun their daughter used to kill herself with, was returned to Mr James MASSOLO as he'd requested, for sentimental reasons ?

Personally, I just don't understand that reasoning ? If my daughter killed herself with a gun belonging to me, it would be the last thing I'd ever wish to see again, least of all returned to me !

When I was working I was case officer on a job where a young 20 yoa bloke, ate his father's 'el cheapo' 'Boito' single barrel shotgun, while sitting on the toilet, which was separate from the bathroom. Consequently this lad had blown the back of his head out, as you'd expect with a 12g. Clearly a suicide. After the Coroner had returned his findings, I sought a disposition order of the property, which was given (the gun, the clothes he was wearing, watch etc).

What generally happens, you determine who's the lawful owner of the property, other than the deceased. If no other claimant, it's usually returned to the NOK in most instances (unless valuable property's involved, then the executor of the deceased's estate).

Would you believe, the lad's father wanted his 'rubbishie' old, Boito Shotgun returned to him ? Brand new, it would only be worth about $90-$100 maximum ? I was stunned, I really was. Considering how emotionally distraught the father and mother were at the time ?

Go figure ? There's no accounting for how some people think ? The father could've just as easily surrendered it to the Commissioner of Police, and it would've been destroyed. And that would've been the end of it !

Dear onthebeach,

Well no surprises then.

Let me count the references in your reply to data, to any kind over evidence, to a mere skerrick of anything other than mumbo-jumbo mantra. Nope nothing, zip.

You now claim “Gun crime in Australia was trending down before and after Howard and at the same rate.” and “Howard's gun control has never been proved to have had any appreciable positive effect in reducing gun offences.” but without any evidence they are just something you have read somewhere or are making up.

Then this piece of delightful rubbish;

“Just to repeat for others who may not read back some posts, the number of people who suicide by firearm was always very low, especially compared with other preferred methods. Suicide by vehicle for example isn't even factored in. The number who suicide with a firearm is so small that your claims are ludicrous.”

What utter bollocks!

Here you go son;

https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2010/192/8/suicide-australia-meta-analysis-rates-and-methods-suicide-between-1988-and-2007

Now scroll down and click 'Box 1'. It will open up a delightful little table showing that from 1988-1997 the second most common form of suicide by males after hanging (6.23/100,000) in Australia was by firearm (5.19/100,000). In fact in Queensland, Tasmania and the NT it was the most common method of taking your life if you were a male.

In the years after the gun laws the hanging rate climbed 50% but the shooting rate dropped by 60% to fall behind gassing.

You really aren't very good at this are you.

o sung wu,

More recent news, who can understand this,
http://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/children-stabbed-to-death-in-the-cairns-suburb-of-manoora/story-fnj4alav-1227161862831

or this?

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/mother-grandmother-from-morayfield-house-of-horrors-arrested-assisting-police/story-fnn8dlfs-1227170025642?nk=25c19df4f4f4130f576180510b8b671f

Was infanticide always about, but the gruesome reality was hidden from the public gaze? How many single deaths might there be even now?

That is why if I had a choice of neighbours, I would very much prefer them to be licensed firearms owners. There I have the very best assurance anyone is ever likely to get that the people concerned are who they say they are, have no criminal record and there are other people also certified for ID and reputation who have vouched for them through long, close and positive association.

o sung wu,

I was once involved as the representative of the family one of two teenage boys who suicided (I knew them both) and the shotgun that was used was disposed of, with the father's consent, by being given to Mick Smith (of Smith's Sports Store) to be sold and any profit given to charity.
Mick later gave me a receipt for a donation of the full retail sale price to Legacy.

Dear O Sung Wu,

I can't understand the mentality of some people
either - on many issues.

As far as gun-control goes public health researchers
regularly point out the relationship between gun
possession and suicide. A good example given in the
link below is -

"...when Israel stopped allowing its soldiers to take
their guns home and had them leave them on base, suicides
on week-ends dropped 60 per cent among the country's
soldiers."

The link explains that - "...the impulse to commit
suicide is temporary so if the density of guns within
a population goes down, then so does the chance that any
person's momentary desire to take their own life will
intersect with access to a firearm..."

Makes sense.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/12/18/1353811/australia-gun-control-suicides/

We have our former Prime Minister - John Howard citing
a study by Andrew Leigh of the Australian National University
and Christine Neill finding that the firearm homicide rate
fell by 59 per cent and the fire-arm suicide rate fell by
65 per cent in the decade after his laws were introduced.

To me this indicates the effectiveness of his laws.

SteeleRedux,

"Whether or not Australia’s laws affected firearm suicides is uncertain. Some studies find an impact, others find little or no evidence of any changes and/or substitution of other suicide methods. Adding to this complexity, suicides across the board declined after 1997. This coincided with national implementation of a wide range of suicide prevention strategies.

There were broader social changes occurring around that time, including the start of a long period of economic growth and low unemployment. It is extremely difficult to disentangle the effects of legislative changes from those of multiple interventions and social changes occurring around the same time. Indeed, based on a careful evidence review, it has been proposed that Australia’s gun laws do not represent a cost-effective way of preventing suicide."
http://thebigsmoke.com.au/2014/10/20/australia-firearms-evidence-really-tells-us/

As is obvious, I prefer peer-reviewed research.

We seem to be looking, only at Firearms as a method of self protection, are there no other viable modes of defence we could avail ourselves too ?

IS MISE...mentioned his stout walking stick, which is duplicitous in it's uses ? An obvious aid to his mobility, and a very handy mode of self defence ? He's studied a method of defence based on ancient Indian procedures ?

HASBEEN...laments the loss of his Carrier launched Jet Fighter, armed with rockets, cannon, and machine guns ? Failing that, he'd (reluctantly) settle for his ol' reliable .303 Bren Gun ? He'd probably have more luck with the latter, then the former I reckon ?

I don't know, would anyone choose Chemical Agents ? A favoured choice for many of our gentlest sex ? The mind boggles at the array available ? *CN, a lacrimator; (aka tear gas & 'Mace') *CS, a lacrimator and irritant *HC, dense smoke (no practical use) *DM, or Adamcite, a sickening agent, but quite dangerous, suitable only for military application; *OC, (Oleoresin Capsicum), an inflammatory agent, causing a burning sensation of the skin. and *CR a very severe Lacrimator & Irriant, suitable only for military use.

Not to forget our friendly 'Tazer' that will cause a pretty decent shock to anybody trying to attack you !

Finally, Impact weapons; *Cosh, *Kubotan, *Billie clubs, *Batons, *Night Sticks. All of these instruments can give an attacker a very decent headache, if he were not to watch himself ?

I've not included Edged Weapons. Though highly effective, but generally fatal if not trained with them properly, similar to a Firearm.

Hi there ONTHEBEACH; IS MISE, and FOXY...

ONTHEBEACH...

I dunno mate I really don't ? Always, it's the kids that suffer, the unwitting subject's of their parents/carers anger, irritation or indignation ? What you say is invariable right, 'generally' speaking many of those who qualify for the issuance of a F/A licence are put 'through the hoops', looking for evidence of criminality and psychological instability. All though a person has been granted a F/A licence, it doesn't necessarily follow that person will remain psychologically stable, rather it's more likely they're an individual without any obvious traits of emotional instability at the time they applied, therefore they've a lesser preponderance perhaps, of 'going postal' ?

Hi there IS MISE...

An awful event if you're personally involved ? What occurred in that case I think would be a 'normal' response of any (again) 'normal' human being ? I'd not want to be in the same country of a weapon, a member of my family had used to suicide ? No matter what the circumstances are. Old Mick Smith, still up there near Railway Square, nice bloke and pretty good with his side by sides & his U&O's. I think Frank was the youngest of the family, and was running the store last time I was there ! Nonetheless, Mick could sure handle his Shotguns.

Hi there FOXY...

I understand your opposition to Firearms per se. Unfortunately F/A's are here to stay. If a potential suicide victim wishes to do away with themselves, they will. I'm sure you're right when you cite figures accounting for suicides via a gun. Nevertheless, whether there's a gun available or not, if a person has it in their mind to do away with themselves, they invariably will. No doubt a gun makes it far easier. If no gun is available, they'll find another way ? With males, more likely they'll hang themselves. Females, overdose. A sad state of affairs, no doubt. A complete blanket 'BAN' on ALL F/A's will not reduce the incidences of suicide, just vary the means of opportunity is all.

Dear O Sung Wu,

If we can remove the chance of even one person not
succeeding in their desire to take their own life
or kill other people -
due to having access to a firearm - then I, like
Mr Howard, feel that the density of guns within a
population should go and remain down.

Statistically - a ban on fire-arms has in the past
has reduced both
homicide and suicide rates.

See you on another discussion.

Cheers.

o sung wu I am surprised you, who must have considerable unarmed combat training should mention such things as "*Cosh, *Kubotan, *Billie clubs, *Batons, *Night Sticks" as self defence weapons. While perhaps suitable for use as part of a group's weapon, they along with knives make the solo user more vulnerable in my mind.

Add in knives, & in most hands they so restrict the user in method of attack, that their actions are well telegraphed, allowing a defender fairly simple options of most effective defence.

In fact, when a little fitter, I would prefer to be attacked by someone wielding any of these weapons, than a powerful barehanded person.

I have no idea about tazer, but have heard some reports of them being ineffective. Is this common, or are they really able to stop a moving attacker in their tracks.

Yes there are probably times when even my slow old Venom would be to fast to be effective, & being very unhappy in helicopters, I guess it will have to be the trusty rifle, or a nice Smith & Wesson for me.

o sung wu,

BTT? OK:)

In my first post I said that I would not arguing the case for weapons. However I would very much like to see withdrawn the unfair reversed onus of proof that re-victimises victims who sought to defend themselves and their loved ones. NSW has already acted on that and other jurisdictions need to follow NSW's lead.

Almost anything can be deemed a weapon by police. The ordinary citizen will go broke defending himself in court, even if he wins.

If you were disturbed by an armed intruder while writing out your shopping list and managed to get several in with your biro, it could be deemed an offensive weapon. You could be charged, hauled off and lobbed into court.

Likewise if you walked with a cane, or say a decent battery torch and a police patrol stopped you, be very careful what you say in return to the disarming query, "What's that for?". Protection is an admission you have an offensive weapon. That is serious.

If you used your torch to whack some feral/s who threatened you and in response to police questioning later you admitted you carried the item for defence you could be well on your way to mortgaging your home to defend yourself in court.

Some here are cautious about defence options. Rightly so, because if there is ever an incident the visiting police will haul off your PC to find evidence. Don't imagine you will get off for aerosols either, unless it was impromptu.

The Weapons Act and the reversed standard of proof that applies (outside NSW) to citizens who defend themselves are very threatening There are examples where the police have proved that in spades, to the personal and financial cost of the victims who previously defended themselves.

o sung wu,

My walking sticks are not stout, they are mostly elegant and my favourite is very light (for a walking stick) and is made from the thin end of a billiard cue.
The wood looks like Queensland maple but is denser and the knob is turned from a piece of Queensland walnut, the dark brown wood of which is a nice contrast to the golden colour of the shaft.

As far as chemical deterrents go nothing beats a fire extinguisher, moreover they can be kept in all rooms of the house and no one can say really that they are there for self defence.

Should we be allowed to possess any thing for the purpose of self defence?

Which raises an interesting point, as the law says that nothing may be possessed for the purpose of self defence, is possessing the means of self defence against fire illegal?

Is the possession of self defence sprays against mosquitos illegal?

Nowhere did the drafters of the laws name any specific being or situation that could be the object of defensive possession, so one must assume that the laws apply against any possible danger.

A legal opinion would be nice on this.

Some legal opinion holds that a martial art is a 'thing' and that to possess (or learn) such an art, "for the purpose...." is a criminal offence.

Why would a secular government want to prevent suicides?

Believing that we are mere bodies, surely they think that "we" will die anyway, so what's the fuss if we die earlier? Perhaps they still want to squeeze some more tax and/or labour out of us? Or perhaps they like to justify the employment of more public-funded care-workers while poor Johny is unable to protest for years of lying and suffering helplessly with Parkinson?

No, more likely it is because their propaganda machine wants us to believe that they care!

No need for messy guns - anyone with about $10K can fly to Switzerland and end it there smoothly and painlessly. Those who don't may still do it with a car. Those who don't have a car can still climb a cliff and jump down.

If government wanted to prevent suicides, the best they could do is to stop driving people into despair by their restricting laws, including those that do not allow us to feel secure in our own homes.

Hi HASBEEN...

I agree with your comments concerning other options for self-defence.I was merely furnishing some non-lethal alternatives as defensive measures. Generally speaking there's probably nothing that would compare with a F/A. as the ultimate deterrent ? Some might not necessarily agree, however I'm speaking essentially, from the perspective of an ordinary member of the public. With some training, an appropriate calibre handgun, again with some moderate training, generally does the trick !

A highly skilled veteran of the FBI now retired, teaches a school, for both men and women wishing to obtain a handgun licence, for self-defence. He's 'told' (wink) me many times, he considers a Smith & Wesson .38spec J frame for women, and the same for men, but on a K frame. Both running .38spec, 110g or 125g + P's hp will do the trick. The J accommodates a women's smaller hand while the K suits most men. Venturing into more powerful stuff is counterproductive for a terrified women or male for that matter. Well trained police might opt for the .357mag, but the 38spec + P will do the job admirably, according to Ronnie F. And naturally I'd agree with him, I wouldn't dare, NOT to agree with Ronnie, he's one very 'handy' hombre is Ronnie ?

Evening to you, ONTHEBEACH & IS MISE...

Both of you are absolutely spot on ! It's an offence for anyone to carry any 'article' for the purpose of self defence ! Crazy isn't it ? Yet the law allows you to take all reasonably measures to defend yourself, or to defend another, if you believe you or another is about to suffer serious injury or death at the hands of an assailant ?That belief must be 'real and impending', not 'doubtful or remote' ? I know you've both, heard that tired old spiel before !

Coppers ask '...why are you carrying that pick handle...'? '...I use it after work in order to 'sharpen-up' my batting technique...''...Oh that's OK sir, well have a good night now...' ! The whole issue of legitimate self-defence is absolutely ludicrous.

Instead 0f relaxing the gun laws,

We should be hardening the Bail laws.

A short while ago we had Jill Meagher killed by a
man out on Bail, who had a criminal record of at least
13 violent assaults and sexual assaults.

It was reported in the newspapers at the time that over a dozen
people have been killed by violent people out on bail over a period of recent years.

Here we had another 2people on bail convicted of
stabbing a woman multiple times and set alight, out on Bail to
kill two more people. Why?

I thought these people were supposed to be kept in jail to
protect the public from their violent behaviour.

You can bet despite Tony Abbott's saying we will look in to it, nothing will change.
The people on these parole boards are too soft or else just
plain incompetent.

Dear onthebeach,

You said;

“As is obvious, I prefer peer-reviewed research.”

You are not going to disarm me with humour me lad.

Oh wait a minute, are you insinuating that an opinion piece from Ms McPhedran who is the Chair of the International Coalition for Women in Shooting and Hunting is an unbiased and reputable source?

Pull the other one or find me one other paper that replicates her distorted contentions.

Leaving that aside can I note you seemed to have quietened down considerably since your opening salvo at me that went something like this;

“other posters should instantly recognise your argument as the whopping great fallacy that it is. Doubtless you would argue that the crowing of the rooster causes the sun to rise as well.”

and your diatribe at Foxy that ran as follows;

“Good Lord, are you channeling a Xerox or something? Because you constantly regurgitate and broken-record the same old, same old fodder entirely oblivious to the replies of the very patient (and admittedly some not so patient anymore) posters who sought to correct you on the previous multiple occasions.” plus “your tricky rhetoric” and “the obviously fallacious and misleading one you are inferring”.

From the outset you dictated the tune we were going to dance at on this thread and I was happy to follow in step, now you seemed to have slowed to a waltz. All rather pleasant though decidedly confusing. But I am perfectly able to respond to you being civil. Perhaps we should try it next thread.

o sung wu,

You must know that what a police prosecutor might accept as 'reasonable' force defending oneself against an offender could be very, very, limited indeed. The police prosecutor regards the intruding offender as the victim and you, the unfortunate householder who defended yourself, as the offender. His job is to convict YOU.

The reversed onus of proof is on YOU, the hapless victim to prove YOU were actually facing serious harm or loss of life and you exactly measured your response to no more than was required to repel him.

NSW recently repealed the reversed onus of proof that re-victimised victims. Here is the change,
<Crimes Act 1900 Section 419
Self-defence-onus of proof
...the prosecution has the onus of proving, beyond reasonable doubt, that the person did not carry out the conduct in self defence.>

Do you agree that change is eminently fair, reasonable and just under our inherited system of law? Because I certainly do. The onus of proof should be on the prosecution and not on the hapless victim.

The NSW Greens opposed the change and lost, fortunately for victims of crime in NSW.

We have an aging population who will increasingly become the victims of crime, because banks and business have hardened their defences, there is very little respect for the aged in Australia, there is more crime associated with drugs and so on.

Frankly, I cannot imagine any practical and effective means of defence that the average 65yr old could lawfully mount against a youth, and definitely not some thug in the prime of his life who has cased your home and planned his attack (as they do!). Nor would the householder stand any real chance of escape. To top it off, the offender is fit and skilled at close quarters and in a tight physical environment. They practice it over and over with their mates.

Just think, how much flexibility, power, stamina and wind do you really have? Be honest!

The truth is that the offender holds all of the aces, including intimate knowledge of police response times.

O sung wu,

"Coppers ask '...why are you carrying that pick handle...'? '...I use it after work in order to 'sharpen-up' my batting technique...''...Oh that's OK sir, well have a good night now...' ! The whole issue of legitimate self-defence is absolutely ludicrous"

Also, "Why did you have the pistol out of the safe, Sir?"
"Well, I'd just reloaded some ammunition and I wanted to make sure it would fit the chambers..." or ditto for the rifle or the shotgun ".... I'd just inserted a round when he axed the front door....".

OSW: Individuals be permitted to carry a weapon for self protection ?

Can't see that working somehow. You'd end up with 1000 times more "Deranged Individuals" holding innocent hostages up in Cafes displaying IS Flags.

Then there's the matter of, who should have access to weapons. Most of the "Gun Nuts" I have met I wouldn't allow to carry even a Butter Knife.

I haven't need to use a weapon for 49 years. Last time I fired one was about 10 years ago on a range. 266/300 over 100 to 300 meters on a drop target range with an unfamiliar weapon. High Score. I used to do better than that. I've slipped a bit.

Unfortunately they won't let me take out some of the people that really need taking out & there's a long list of Baddies out there. (Think, Star Chamber) Buggar.

Is Mise way off topic, but you might find interesting.

I have 2 walking sticks, both picked up in the Solomons. One is in coconut palm timber. It is remarkably heavy, strong & has an interesting grain pattern. The other is in ebony. Unlike other ebony carvings I have, it is not totally black timber, but has a wide blond strip of grain running along it.

Both by a Solomon tradition have a snake carved onto the stick, about 6 or 8mm proud, winding it's way along the length of the stick. The snake is to protect the user from evil spirits in the earth, by not allowing then to climb the stick.

I don't know if they would protect the user from evil men, but they are both heavy, with a large handgrip knob, probably good for cracking skulls.

The interplay between the strip of blond grain, & the snake, make the ebony stick a thing of rare beauty.

OK JAYB...

I realise you're cranky because they've taken you're beloved .50cal Barratt from you, still you'll have to content yourself with you're trusty old L1A1, SLR. And you know as well as I do, the old 7.62 will still make their eye's water if they cop it centre mass !

And you're right about some of the very weird 'gun nuts' that spend their entire days engaged in 'ballistic masturbation' down in their local 'boozer'. These blokes are usually on the radar, still a few manage to get through nevertheless, and they always represent a clear danger ?

I heard a whisper (not even a rumour) there was to be added to the agenda of the up-coming 'Police Commissioners Conference' to discuss, alternate methods of detecting and deterring applicants, or current licence holders from obtaining, or renewing F/A licences. Those who were deemed to suffer from certain categories of Psychiatric illnesses, were to be more thoroughly probed and screened, as to their fitness or otherwise to hold a F/A licence of any type ? It may sort out a few, depends how they determine whether a person is mentally ill ?

G'day there IS MISE...

Yeah I know mate. They'll always go after the easiest mark ? Still if you've got a decent sort of copper looking into the matter, and he sees the 'offended' individual has acted in 'good faith', and the crook got the flogging he justly deserved, "sometimes" I repeat, "sometimes" a copper can keep the allegations of 'excessive force' out of the judicial arena ? Once it hits the DPP, all the copper can do is stress and emphasize how 'wronged' the charged individual was, by the 'violent actions' of the crook who violated the poor bugger's home ! It's certainly not good is it ? The law's an ass !

G'day CHERFUL...

Of course you're right. The Bail laws are within the purview of the State government's, and NSW has amended the Act to take effect at the end of this month I believe ? Too late I realise for some, still better than nothing. In my opinion, most of this nonsense, Bail, availability of Firearms, stronger sentences, and many other instances of weaknesses in our judicial processes, come from our erudite, over remunerated, morally corrupt, politicians !

Politicians from * B O T H * sides of politics ! All Mr ABBOTT and the LNP can do, is to implore his various State Premiers to strengthen their Bail laws ? Concerning F/A's, again being a State issue, it's up to the various governments of each State to deal with ?All the federal government can do, is tighten the Custom's Act to make it much harder to import certain classes of F/A's into Oz, which he's done already. Some say he should tighten the Act even more ? Perhaps he should, I don't know ?

G'day HASBEEN...

Your last thread was directed to IS MISE ! Nevertheless I felt it necessary to respond, in the interests of 'human survival' ?

Your description of '...a strip of blond wood, and a snake...', does NOT represent anything that could be remotely described as a thing of 'beauty' ! Snakes are evil, frightening, horrible, 'slivering', dreadful, friendless creatures, that most SANE people don't like ! Furthermore I don't like 'em !

o sung wu,

I'm in the process of getting one of these,
http://www.ruger.com/products/no1Varminter/models.html
in brand new condition and with reloading dies and 50 rounds.

Fitted with a 4-12 variable scope; all for $700.

Will be doing some long range fox sniping.

OSW: Your description of '...a strip of blond wood, and a snake...', does NOT represent anything that could be remotely described as a thing of 'beauty' ! Snakes are evil, frightening, Horrible, 'slivering', dreadful, friendless creatures, that most SANE people don't like ! Furthermore I don't like 'em !

What's a Snake ever done to you. Snakes can be nice people too. See with an attitude towards them like that I'd bite you too. ;-)

Varminter? Sorry mate I don't like Martini type Actions. They did make a good .223 for the military once Though. It was a contender along with the M16 to replace the SLR. They went with the Styer then modified it & stuffed it. I think they gone back to the original configuration now though.

They Modified the SLR too. On the original when the last round was fired the working parts stayed back. Mag off, mag on, release. The holding open device originally worked in reverse & had to be pulled down to release the working parts. Hence the grip serrations on the top of it.

OSW: you're trusty old L1A1, SLR.

Never did like the SLR, for the Jungle. Too many sticky out bits that got caught on everything. Having the back sight & the Foresight on separates parts of the Weapon was a bad mistake. Too hard to keep sighted. Every time you fired it the MPI changed if it had the slightest wear.

o sung wu,

I again directed some comments to you rather than generally as they should have been as the issues developed. However you have broad shoulders and I reckon you always know when I am arguing things through rather that pointing the bone in any particular direction, least of all your way.

You are right though in what you implied: (in my words) that the modern regulators only nod to the time-honoured right of self defence, while ensuring that members of the public are in fact so restricted as to be hog-tied victims for any abuse, even slaughter, by an offender.

It is as though the State's social re-engineers, acting on the advice presumably of a social elite presumably, wanted to make the citizen's right to self defence unlawful, but stopped just short of that. -Here is where Goerge Orwell sit up in his grave and say, "I predicted that would happen".

If you don't mind I would like to open the discussion up a bit on that most basic of human rights that the State callously disregards for we ordinary folk, the right to preserve and defend ourselves and our loved ones.

It is inconceivable that way back in British law the State would have expected us to conduct our own defence, or defend the State against invaders too, with our bare hands. Particularly where the adversary had a big sword and was using it.

What about the Bill of Rights? For what possible reason would the State want to geld our rights? When did politicians ever presume that politicians and the State are our masters and not the other way around?

It wouldn't surprise me if that fundamental right still exists and the creeping restrictions on our capacity to conduct a worthwhile, sufficient personal defence are presumptuous and unlawful.

G'day there ONTHEBEACH...

I left your thread 'til last, because it had some substance to it ! There's been a few instances down through the years, where the notion of 'self-defence' has been abused and misused both by the Crown and as a useful defence to a charge of; attempt. murder, grievous bodily harm, malicious wounding, and other matters involving offences against the person.

There was a well documented matter in Melbourne a few years ago, where two well known criminal identities had it out, in the toilets of a Carlton restaurant, both armed. Only one emerged, the other dead. The defence was 'self-defence' ? Most thought this bloke was facing at least 25-35 years minimum. He walked, to the amazement of everyone, including himself I suspect ? The criminal law is a very topsy-turvy thing ? Therefore issues like the burden of proof, and other legal 'standards' are only good in text books and during 'moot' courts. Otherwise all bets are off. It's often been said, prior to codifying most of common law, the criminal law, was always considered fertile ground for 'precedence'.

I realise my response above has been flimsy ? Still I'm right out of my league, when it comes down to discussing the criminal elements of our system of jurisprudence. A whole study in it's own right !

Apropos your comments, where you were dealing essentially with the 'Doctrine of Proportionality', that's another matter entirely. In all issues dealing with 'offences against the person', physical disparity or dissimilitude, is always considered by the Courts ? Similarly as it is, the person's age, gender and infirmities if an any. I absolutely agree with your summation concerning 'burden of proof'.

As I've said previously, the law is (appears) an ass, on the face of it ? But it's the best we've got, until they draft further amendments, repeal some, strengthen others, and increase certain components of our system, well....?

Thanks ONTHEBEACH, you're certainly across some of it, more so than me, I suspect ? Thank you.

Just to add, I am aware that Australia doesn't not have a Bill of Rights and I probably wouldn't support any initiative in that direction given the likely influence of the elites and lobbyists that both sides of the Parliament seem to be captive of.

I am wondering if there was ever anything else that protected our rights (my earlier post refers).

o sung wu,

Thank you for your reply.

I am a layman. My interest here is in government being accountable and getting value for money for the taxes taken from us. Like many I note and abhor political correctness and the continual use of such pretexts as, 'If one child is saved it is worth you losing your rights' - from people who are clueless about what rights are in the first place.

Have a good day and thanks for the thread.

The double negative in my first sentence was accidental.

G'day IS MISE...

Oh that's nice ! A .220Swift, pushing along a 40g, that will move out of the muzzle at 'warp speed' around 4100fps+ - , and stay dead flat all the way to that bad ol' fox ! Even a 50grain ('boaty') will still travel at around 3800fps+ - at the muzzle !

In the mid 1980's I did the FBI Sniper School in the US, and all their factory loads were 'Federal Match' .308calibre, loaded specifically to law enforcement specifications, and NOT available to the general public apparently ? Anyway they insisted on using 168grain HP 'Boat-tail' exclusively, claiming the 'Boaties' gave superb stability during the 'external ballistic' phase !

Interestingly, it was Federal Laboratories who undertook all the Bureau's specialised loads; the likes of 'Hydra shok'; the 'Sabot'; HE's; the 'Bolo' tactical entry stuff, and the famous 'Flechette's', amongst a plethora of other tactical configurations.

As I said once before, concerning your lovely old Ithaca, you've got superb taste there, IS MISE. Not so long ago I had a similar configuration, a Ruger No 1 'Tropical' in .458W, a big game thing. But as a 'paper puncher', I thoroughly enjoyed it. Though that's not to say my right shoulder was all that enthusiastic about it, after 20 or so rounds ?

At $700 is a steal I reckon, particularly as our Dollar is dropping so quickly. I hope you thoroughly enjoy yourself with you very 'Swift' Ruger ! Their revolvers are brilliant too, the 'Security Six' in .357mag, specifically.

OSW: A .220Swift, pushing along a 40g, that will move out of the muzzle at 'warp speed' around 4100fps+ - , and stay dead flat all the way to that bad ol' fox !

Yes, I did notice the heavy barrel on the Varminter. It's the loading leaver that I'm against. Leavers like that tend to get caught in thing when you don't want them to.

In the 60's the Army used the standard .303 with scope for sniper rifles. I do believe some were recalibrated for 7.62 or .308 but weren't a success. I used to go down to the old Rifle Range at Enoggera on the Week end. (Where the main Barracks area is now.) The old blokes shooting there would get Bulls at 1000 yards only using iron sights. I love to see what they could do with all this new stuff, with scopes.

Hi (again) JAYB...

I didn't mind the SLR. I did my recruit training with the .303, and given it's an old rifle, it's legendary I reckon. While it's true the SMLE is totally unsuited for today's soldier, and in todays combat requirements. Nevertheless when the enemy was hit, he was hit, he'd have no doubt about it, at all ?

I believe (what would I know ??) the SLR was designed more for the European type environment, not for jungle. Too heavy, too long, and as you say, too many bits 'n pieces to get entangled in the bush. Again, the 7.62 did hit hard, and the recipient knew he was hit ! Be it the thigh, shoulder, or leg, often proved fatal, particularly in the very hot, extremely steamy, and energy eroding jungle environments ? Where infections generally occurred, often within hours of him being wounded ?

Concerning your obvious attraction to those.....reptiles aka snakes ? Seriously I'm just fearful of them that's all. Nothing rational can be said to ease that fear, when fear prevails completely ! And common sense deserts you entirely ! I know, I'm a classic 'nut case' !

Thanks for your contribution JAYB.

'evening to you JAYB...

Yes I belonged to Hurstville VDC Rifle Club, and we shot at the old but 'fantastic' ANZAC Rifle Range at Liverpool ! On a Saturday afternoon, you'd see many hundreds of shooters on the mound all trying their best to get a 'Possible' or even a double 'Possible' on the second 'Down' ! Those days, late fifties early sixties, you'd shoot two 'downs'. You'd fire two 'sighters' and then your 'Ten business'. On your second 'Down' you'd simply repeat the sequence. The total score, was out of your twenty business shots. They were great days, they really were !

Another thing, in those days on Saturdays, I regularly caught the train from Strathfield Station to Liverpool and return, carrying my rifle and equipment (minus the bolt which was in my bag) quite openly in a normal passenger railway carriage, and most passengers didn't bat an eye ? Imagine seeing someone with a SMLE in full view of the public, on the train, replicating my actions all those years ago ?

Some of the greatest Big Bore shooters in Australia (and Queens Prize Shooters too) would be there every Saturday. The likes of the great Percy PAVEY, Greg? MOTT (I think it was his first name) and Jim SWEET, were brilliant shots, and always prepared to help us young fellows. Great days to be sure !

It's extremely difficult, if not impossible to convert the No1 Mk 3 from .303 to 7.62. What most did, was grab a No 4 and adopt it to take the 7.62, which was a good conversion. Other conversions that worked very well was your old No1 Mk 3 from .303 into 7.7X54 ? In those days the D of D prohibited any member of the public from owning a military .303, unless a registered Big Bore shooter ?

Actually IS MISE would be able to tell you more precisely, as to the correct conversions that are most appropriate to the old .303 into the 7.62's ?

By the way, I still dislike snakes immensely...sorry ? :-)

Hi o sung wu, I am right with you on snakes. The ones on my walking sticks are wooden old mate, like the drug store indians of old in the US. Besides it is the evil spirits they attack, not you.

I have lost 2 dogs to a brown & a black in the last 4 years, so to me the only good snake is a dead one.

What ever fool actually got the rotten things protected should be chucked into a pit full of the them. No one cares what some fool law might say, not a soul around here will let any snake, other than carpet snakes, roam their property. We lose too many dogs & horses to them.

In Wide Bay we had wide north facing cement front steps. Taipans in particular loved sunning themselves there in the morning. Any idiot who expected anyone to allow that, with 3 young kids around is a bloody idiot, & obviously an inner city high rise dweller.

On one occasion I found a very angry Taipan in the pool, just before the kids came home from school. In those days I had a 4Ft length of broom handle, with 6Ft of 12G fence wire attached to it, like a whip. This is an excellent implement for disabling snakes, without getting too close, & safer than a gunshot with kids around.

o sung wu,

You might be interested in researching the Ishapore 2A/2A1 (Google + YouTube maybe). Manufactured from 1963 on and purpose made for the 7.62mm NATO (7.62×51) and for the Sino-Indian conflict. It had better steel than the Mk1 Smellie.

This bit of history might interest you and Is Mise as well,
http://www.casr.ca/bg-crr-canadian-ranger-rifle.htm

The Australian Omark (Sportco) Mk44 deserves a mention.

I competed in full bore as a student and for years thereafter.

General Comment
It is very shortsighted government that does not encourage 'military' comps and target shooting generally. It is worthwhile for many good reasons. From one of the clubs,

"Target rifle shooting is one of the few sports where people can genuinely complete on an even basis regardless of age, sex, fitness, or physical disability. In open competition, shooters are graded only on ability. In State and National teams or individual events women compete without discrimination alongside men, teenagers alongside octogenarians, and perfect physical specimens alongside those who have had triple cardiac bypass surgery.

"Target rifle shooting is not age specific, nor gender specific and nor do you have to be an able-bodied individual to do it. I think that's one of the peculiarities of our sport"

Hi there HASBEEN & ONTHEBEACH...

And where are you lurking IS MISE, we need you to provide us all, with some of that sage advice ?

The 'Omark' a South Aussie F/A. Didn't they mfg'd 'Sportco's' in rimfires (.22 and .22 Hornets) as well as conversions on the Martini .310 Cadet, and the 'Slazenger' rimfire's, or was that the SAF at Lithgow ?

I'm sorry gentleman, my memory's not all that brilliant. And as you say ONTHEBEACH, the Omark big bore, in 7.62 deserved more than a mere mention, a brilliant bit of kit ? Fitted with a Central, a Rawson, even the Parker Hale aperture sight and you'd be scoring a 'possible' at 900yards ! I've not shot the 7.62 competition, in my club days only, the .303's.

I purchased a 'Brand New', No1 Mk3 from the MDRCU at ANZAC Range, Liverpool, for the sum of three pounds. Had Mr MOTT (can't think of his first name?) fit a heavy barrel ('ferlach' I think?), 'fully floated', and a near new 'Rawson', and I was on my way.

As you quite rightly point out ONTHEBEACH, the old military Rifle Clubs had no barriers, everyone was welcome, no gender bias, and you'd learn heaps from all the great shooters. Number one; 'SAFETY & DISCIPLINE', how to read the flags, error chasing...everything; a truly fantastic social/sport I reckon. I'd just turned 16 (minimum age) when I joined the Hurstville VDC Club ! I didn't even have my drivers licence then.

VDC meant 'Volunteer Defence Corps' for those who don't know. Talk about learning preparatory skills for the Army eh gentlemen ? Sorry HASBEEN Navy too, 'gulp' ?

I must cease forthwith, otherwise I'll be 'chucked' off the Forum for excessive idle 'chatter' and straying too far from the topic !

SNAKES... are horrible creatures, with beady little eyes, and 'sneaky' personalities ! The only good thing about them, was that cartoon series in the newspaper 'Snake Tales'. That poor little fellow, I felt a bit sorry for him, particularly after 'Lady Snake' had (again) rejected him !

o sung wu,

It is your thread..

You will be heartened to know that 'SMLEs' are still being made and even better by Australia, and the range comp. spirit is alive.

Google Brisbane-based AIA and its M10-B2 Match Rifle. Reproduction of SMLE No. 4 Mk II

o sung wu,

I've unlurked!

I shoot with an Omark in 7.62, they are really accurate, unfortunately our range is only 300 metres.
Sportco made .22 rim fires and shotguns, don't know if they ever made a Hornet.
They did the .22 conversions on the .310 Cadet Martinis- a fantastic little rifle- I've had one for years and it's out of it that I managed to fire 15 aimed shots in one minute.
Slazenger's .22 rf were made at Lithgow (both single shot and repeaters) and they also did a conversion of the SMLE to .22 Hornet with a 5 shot magazine, another conversion was of the SMLE to a single shot.410 shotgun.
I had a Ruger 'Security Six' in .357 Magnum but unfortunately it had a 3-1/2 inch barrel, so had to go when the minimum barrel length laws came in.
This law was utter stupidity or was designed to annoy, as I've carried a Colt Army model, with 7-1/2 inch barrel, concealed and with no difficulty.

Further to the above.

The No1 rifles were not suitable for conversion to 7.62 NATO as it was found that after a number of shots the bodies stretched and/or cracked.
Tho No 4 Mk I/1, and later marks were suitable for conversion but the Mk 1, whilst OK in Europe didn't fare so well in Australia as a few cracked when fired out around Broken Hill in the summer as the heat may have affected the breech pressure, they cracked in the slot for the bolt release catch which had been done away with on the No4 1/1 as a wartime manufacturing economy.

Good evening to you IS MISE...

I was just about to head off to another Site altogether, when you managed to 'unlurk' yourself once more ! Thanks for your information by the way. So Slaz. were made at the SAF. Lithgow ? As I said I've never even held the Omark, so obviously I've not fired one. Everything I've heard about it has been excellent, and as you know the Big Bore guys are quite fussy with their Kit ?

The Martini, is a superb little rifle. With whatever conversions that have been done on them. Beside the .22's, and the Hornets, they were marvellous with the old .218 Bee too, with slightly more 'ommph' than the Hornet ? I can't remember much about the ballistics, but a great little rabbiter I've been told, at a longer range than most .22's are capable. (I DON'T HUNT, by the way IS MISE?) I'm not even sure if you can still purchase 'factory' now, you may have to re-load I suppose ?

The Security Six is a great 'wheel gun' in .357mag. In fact I like all Ruger material. When I was in the job, by choice I'd go for the S.Six every time, with .38spec. HP 110grain + P's (the accepted round for coppers then).

I was originally issued with a standard S & W 'K' mod.10/3 .38spec, and upon becoming a detective, opted for the S & W 'J' mod 36/2 ('Chief's Special') which necessitated lugging around two 'speed loaders' which was a pain. And then on to the Glocks prior to my retirement ! Oh well, happy days !

And further to my last thread IS MISE...

Many thanks for that, I understood they generally wouldn't convert the No1's to the 7.62 but I wasn't sure why ? You've had some guns in your time eh ? Did you ever do anything with the old Martini 450-577's ? I've seen them in .303, .410g. and another couple of calibres, I can no longer remember ?

As I said at the outset, I don't hunt, but I really enjoy the engineering side of quality F/A's! There's nothing I like better then witnessing the really close tolerances, the smooth actions, as you 'lock in a round' particularly with some quite powerful F/A's. the likes of; 375 H & H Mag. or my old Ruger .458W Mag. 'Tropical' single shot. and many others I've been privileged to shoot ?

Mid 1986 I attended the FBI Snipers School in the US, and we were all permitted to fire a limited amount of shots from weapons, the Bureau have within their inventory. Many of us opted to go for the Barrett, M82A1 Anti-Material Rifle. in .50cal.

A heavy brute of a rifle, as you'd expect, at nearly 15kgs. We all shot with it even though for some, there was a bit of trepidation with the 'felt' recoil ? That said, I found it OK, whether it's because I'm a fairly big bloke used to firing my Ruger .458W mag,, I don't know ? It's fitted with a muzzle brake which disperses most of the gases and diminishes the recoil considerably ? To be precise the Barrett is not designed for law enforcement requirements, rather a military application. But you know as well as I do, 'boys with their toys' ah ? Thanks again for your info. much appreciated IS MISE.

Just getting back to the community and social aspect of range sports.

There are supervised activities with free coaching at SSAA ranges throughout Australia. It is not unusual for instance for seniors, men and women, who have time free after retirement to try it out, here is an example, (SSAA throughout Australia, see the phone book),

http://ssaabris.org.au/storage/29804/Flyer%20-GOLD.pdf

Women and men, or women and men separately, single (put with a group) or book groups. Here is another example taken from one location of many, fully supervised, helpful instruction and a different fun outing,

http://ssaabris.org.au/storage/32075/RASA%20Email%20Flyer%20A4%20270914.pdf

It is quite usual for young men who want to celebrate a friend's impending marriage to book an afternoon on the skeet range with coaching and a good laugh. A bbq later at home.

A damned good alternative to the 'traditional' option: different, exciting and fun.

Young women are doing the same in lieu of the boring ritual (and let-down) of the 'hen nights' of the granny generation.

G'day there ONTHEBEACH...

It's no longer the exclusive preserve of (mainly) blokes shooting Big Bore, any more, many a 'dainty' lady can handle a 7.62 quite well from what I've been told ! I must admit other than the odd spouse, I've not heard of too many women participating in the Big Game disciplines, neither would I anymore.

You might recall me telling IS MISE I ran a .458 Ruger, single shot 'Tropical' for awhile, and loved it. While it's true you needed to hold on to the thing it was a great rifle to shoot and I loved every minute of it ! I mainly shot at the 100yard occasionally 50yard competitions, but that was enough for me. After 4 X 5 shot sets my shoulder said quite loudly enough is enough ! The social activities were marvellous as you say.

It was a funny thing ONTHEBEACH, I was never an enthusiastic aspirant of pistol shooting. Carrying the damn thing day after day, there was no novelty to participate in the sport privately. Moreover to purchase a decent centre fire, set you back a few bob too. Although, it was claimed that Garry L. the Oz agent for S & W, would always look after the blokes if they wish to take up the sport ? Still, I think you'd need to be pretty keen to carry one all day, and shoot it on weekends or nights ?

The Big Game Shoots are great if you like the concept of 'Charging Elephant' and similar disciplines ? Most of the events are quite close range out to only 200yards (if memory serves me well). Trying to replicate Big Game hunting in Africa and India. Naturally, everyone wanted an English 'double rifle' either H & H or Purdy. Both could set you back handsomely, $7,000 second hand. Bolt action slightly less ? And one would never think of bringing an American mfgd. rifle to the range, like moi ? That would be sacrilege, according to the purists ? See you again ONTHEBEACH.

Well this is interesting: the OP mentioned weapons of all types, but everybody just wants to talk about guns.

What's up with that? Why the childlike fascination with things that go 'bang'? If a man should have the right to bear arms, why do those arms necessarily have to be firearms?

What about my right to carry vials of mutated anthrax for my own protection? What about my right to gas home invaders with prussic acid? At the very least I should be allowed to lay a small minefield in my front lawn.

Jonathon Swift,

Well done, carrying on the traditional Argumentum ad Absurdum so ably employed by the Original Jonathon.

JS: At the very least I should be allowed to lay a small minefield in my front lawn.

& Send your children out to play in it Johnathon. Ay. This is exactly why some people should be banned from having weapons. IQ test: Fail.

I guess it would be fair to say that after WW2 there were lots of men with weapons. A lot were allowed to take their weapons home on discharge. I know all my uncles had their .303's from the War. The difference to day is that those men had the training & knew what their weapons could do. They had full respect for the weapons. They were extensions of their own bodies. Unfortunately, nowadays, the young people just see a weapon as another toy, to be played with. That's the difference.

I have witnessed weapon handling by some of these later gun addicts. I would not let them be in charge of a butter knife without supervision.

Jayb,

The obvious solution then is training.

Is Mise: The obvious solution then is training.

But first you would need to weed out those with a SG (Specific Grouping.)Rating of below 3. I do believe the Army rated me at SG2+, IQ 129 & High Mechanical, Aptitude Low Clerical Abilities, at 17. (Improved a bit since then.)

Some of these people who want to run around with Guns are below an IQ of 95 & SG4. All the training in the world would not allow these people to handle anything other than a wooden spoon.

Jayb, it was probably those very people who stopped the Japs at Kokoda.

You don't have to be exceptionally bright to know what is dangerous.

In fact, looking at the attitudes expressed by so many of our academics, I think it is fair to say that perhaps many of those with high IQ are more dangerous to others than those with low IQ.

Hi there J SWIFT...

An earlier thread contained in this topic did embrace other non- lethal options, for defensive measures, without the necessity to resort to some of your absurd solutions ?

Has been: looking at the attitudes expressed by so many of our academics, I think it is fair to say that perhaps many of those with high IQ are more dangerous to others than those with low IQ.

Whooo yair! I can't argue with that. Just look at the mess's some of the Generals have got us into. I won't mention Politicians that comes into the Low IQ category.

Jayb,

Your anecdotes and stories are just that and flawed - easily disproved by the very low incidence of problems with licensed persons.

Another example, as if any more are required, is the excellent record over many years of school cadets. Thousands of secondary school students had custody of the most potent and fastest firing bolt action of WW2, the SMLE, and were skilled with light machine guns such as the venerable Bren and the Aussie Owen.

Many of those young Cadets earned and proudly wore the crossed rifles of marksmen on their uniforms.

In the field on bivouacs and camps they fired blanks, full load, no projectile but possibly harmful if misused. They fired live ball ammunition on ranges, the exact same cordite rounds used in WW2. They were issued with and used all sorts of edged weapons - tools to cadets in the bush or on parade (swords), again without the loss of life your catastrophysing hysteria imagines. Many Cadets received instruction and fired the SLR and M60 machine gun on ranges.

Many schools had their own .22 ranges. Again, no problems at all.

Jonathon Swift, "What about my right to carry vials of mutated anthrax for my own protection? What about my right to gas home invaders with prussic acid? At the very least I should be allowed to lay a small minefield in my front lawn"

Why would anyone say that?

Attention-seeking is one thing, but that stuff is outrageous and obscene.

I also want to be allowed to lay a small minefield in my front lawn.

Not that I would ever do it, but the knowledge that I COULD would be a good deterrent for intruders.

OTB: Your anecdotes and stories are just that and flawed - easily disproved by the very low incidence of problems with licensed persons.

Well I can only speak from my experience, I can't force you to believe me.

OTB: the excellent record over many years of school cadets. Thousands of secondary school students had custody of the most potent and fastest firing bolt action of WW2, the SMLE.

I have no problem with that & as Has been said, these people have been properly trained from an early age. It's the, Would be, if could be, that cause the problems & the criminal element. The ones that have never had any training or just a one day basic. The ones that weren't given a Size 9 where it hurt if they even looked like bending the rules, I don't have a problem with. For the people from WW2 & Vietnam & to a lesser extent CMF & Cadets have had many, many hours of training. Would be or Could be haven't, There-in lies the difference. People like Johnathon Swift. would you let him carry a weapon?

I Don't think so!

There are others here that know what I'm talking about. You make it obvious that you have no idea & would be, I think, another person I wouldn't let use a butter knife.

Jayb, "It's the, Would be, if could be, that cause the problems & the criminal element. The ones that have never had any training or just a one day basic"

If what you believe was true it would be reflected in crime and accident numbers. There are thousands of illegal firearms out there and that is not the only way to wreak mayhem, even if you wrongly conflate the lawless with the law-abiding as you unreasonably do.

Gun crime is low and always has been.

However if you are so worried about the stupid and untrained getting hold of dangerous things, what about tools like chainsaws, a whole array of chemicals, and (shudder, shudder, as you must do) a motor vehicle or booze?

How do you sleep at night surrounded by your neighbours? Better still, what might you have done that you are so scared of them?

Jayb,

I was SG1 with high mechanical ability and low clerical.

I did 12 months once as one of the two Battalion HQ Orderly Room Clerks !!

IS MISE...

That's the Army for you ? You've been determined unsuited for clerical work, so they place you in the Orderly Room, naturally ! And a competent clerk, is posted into the world of the 'drop shorts' !

I think the one common denominator that emerges from all this discussion, apropos an individual's suitability to possess F/A's, is whether that person has received bona fide training, as you've consistently stated herein.

And it would seem to me, the principal place to receive such training, is with one of the armed services. Commencing with either the School Cadets, Air Force Cadets or the Naval Cadets, then up through the normal configuration of the military hierarchy ! You simply can't get more thorough or more structured training, from anyone I should think ?

PS:- IS MISE; I still like your correct (numerical) nomenclature of the SMLE; .3zero3 cal. alternatively .3nought3 cal.? What a crazy world we live in ? Still we must be politically correct mustn't we ?

OTB: How do you sleep at night surrounded by your neighbours? Better still, what might you have done that you are so scared of them?

Well mostly it's little old ladies that I care for & who care for me. My closest neighbour is a Sgt of Police. The land owner on the other side is a total nut case & the Police have taken his fire arms off him. He didn't have them registered. The next but one is a Scientist & I help him with his mechanical needs. I'm teaching him & he's coming along OK. The next one works for MSS & is a real shady character as MSS people are. (National Drug Transport.) But I didn't say that. He or his wife don't talk to anyone in the street. If you do he'll sue or something. Everyone else is great. In fact the entire neighbourhood but one are the best.

OTB, you should be as lucky.

Jayb,

LOL, you do have your hands full.

BTW, I agree that some are intent on pursuing a Darwin Award. I just don't want them to set the standard for everyone else.

Have a good one anyhow and the humour was appreciated.

oh sung wu,

Back to the 'big boys' toys'; over the years I had a number of .577/450 Martini-Henry rifles and carbines.
I shot a few of them and they were interesting to play with but I was more interested in the .577 Enfield muzzle loaders.
Black powder was hard to get back in the late 1940s and we often broke up Martini-Henry rounds for the powder, Smith's Sports Store had thousands of them and Mick sold them cheap, nobody really wanted them.
These were mainly the brass foil cases and are now worth a small fortune to collectors.
The full rifle weighed around nine pounds and the carbine about six and a half, the rifle round had a charge of 85 grains of black powder and the carbine (iIrc) 60 grains.
A "joke" on the unsuspecting was to give them a rifle round to fire in a carbine!

Authorities call year-old concealed-carry law a 'non-event'
Sat, 01/03/2015 - 7:00am | Tracy Moss

While gun violence remains a problem across Illinois, the state's year-old concealed-carry law has had no noticeable negative effect, local authorities say.

"For us, it's been a non-event," said Joe Gallo, deputy chief with Champaign police, echoing a similar sentiment as law-enforcement officials in other area counties.

When Illinois became the last state to enact concealed-carry in January, after the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down its long-time ban, police expressed concerns about safety. One of their biggest fears: police interactions with licensed gun carriers during traffic stops.

Champaign County Sheriff Dan Walsh said deputies made one DUI arrest of a concealed-carry permit holder in 2014. The driver was completely cooperative, he said.

Walsh said he told his deputies when the law went into effect to let him know if they ran into any problems.

"I've yet to get one," he said.

"I think people were so concerned about it in the beginning, because there was a lot of media hype and speculation," said Urbana Police Chief Patrick Connolly. "But quite honestly, we have often said the people who are law-abiding and take the time to go to class and register and understand the concept, hopefully, are going to be smart enough to handle the firearm appropriately. So, I don't think this was something out of the ordinary."

Danville police Sgt. Josh Campbell agreed, saying "When you're talking concealed-carry, it's mostly your law-abiding citizens, who don't cause problems anyway."
http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2015-01-03/authorities-call-year-old-concealed-carry-law-non-event.html

Good evening to you IS MISE...

Correct me if I'm wrong, the old Martini 577/450's were capable of conversion to more modern calibres ? I'm quite out of my comfort zone here, my knowledge on the earlier 'Big' Martini's is quite limited I'm afraid ? Trouble is your memory fades these days I find ? I must admit I like everything about the old Martini actions, quite strong, and simplicity personified I believe. I'd would've liked to have acquired one converted to .22 RF, a beautiful little gun and as strong as house bricks !

Concerning you second contribution whereupon you were commenting on IL's year old 'concealed carry' laws...? You know as well as I, the normally well trained patently honest and law abiding shooter, could carry around a Bren gun under his coat if he wished, without an ounce of bother, or even giving rise to apprehension of trouble ? It's the criminal, the mentally unbalanced criminal, that gives you the trouble, every time ?

But when a problem does manifest itself, it's the hapless shooter who's both legitimate, and appropriately licenced that consciously bears the full wrath of the law; and who's ultimately the unwitting recipient for the anarchy caused by the ne'er do wells.

Those who choose to aimlessly roam our streets in search for more innocent victims, they too becomes another statistic, in which the government use to further strengthen and mandate the F/A laws ? Whereas, it's the crooks that need be targeted, every time ?

Interesting.

http://www.tracking-point.com/

'evening to you JAYB...

Well there's some hope for me yet ! Soon you'll not have a need to even possess the F/A in order to operate it ?

Jayb,

Looks very scary! You are referring to the dark sunglasses, right?

It is always amusing how add-ons like Picatinny rails and black plastic can make things very Hollywood and very Bad Ass. The law requires that it is always an ordinary single shot bolt action underneath.

You can see the same effect in the mean-looking and black, as the advertisers have it, cars in magazines. Spoilers and so on, but underneath very often just the same old engine, drive train and suspension as ever.

Taking the car parallel further, a Bugatti Veyron would be lethal on our roads, but it and the driver are still subject to laws, some very fundamental. Impractical too, none around of course.

o sung wu
My weapon had two functions. The first to protect me and the second to intimidate the public.
Unfortunately there are far too many idiots and nut cases in the public arena to allow them to carry a weapon.
I think we have a reasonable (what a wonderful word that one is, as a copper it ruled your life)balance in our community today although availability is commonplace.
chrisgaff200

G'day there CHRISGAFF1000...

Mate it's good to see you; '...on reasonable grounds...', indeed a great word to guide us all in the pursuit of some 'balance' in our professional lives !

You're dead right, there are enough crooks out there with illicit handguns wandering around, without giving everyone a licence to carry ? I'll admit the ease in which you can pick-up yourself a decent Glock or S&W or whatever, is becoming a worry for the boys these days ? Apparently the most reliable of all the gun runners are the Bikies and their 'hangers on' ? As well as having 'big' sway out at Long Bay ? Times are changing eh ? Good to see you back !

Luckily I have never been in a position to run across people I would need to carry a gun for protection against, but I can see the day getting closer.

G'day there JAYB...

Unfortunately I believe you're right my friend ? We are living in very troubled times and the availability of illicit weapons is a distinct possibility these days, more so then forty or fifty years ago ? So I hope can remember how to strip down your M16 or SLR, 'cause the time draws nigh, when you may have to be able to do so, I should think ?

chrisgaff1000, "Unfortunately there are far too many idiots and nut cases in the public arena to allow them to carry a weapon"

Where do police recruits come from?

"Unfortunately there are far too many idiots and nut cases in the public arena to allow them to carry a weapon"

OTBG: Where do police recruits come from?

Whats left.

To reiterate where I am coming from, my interest is in government obtaining the very best value for money from the taxes extracted from the public.

The rhetoric of gun control is so flawed as to be laughable nonsense.

Billions of dollars of taxpayers' money have been wasted on creating mountains of bureaucratic paperwork, for instance a gun registry that is reliably wrong and doesn't record illegal firearms anyhow. Howard's 'gun control' directs scant police resources onto monitoring the very people known to be reliable and law-abiding, which are those with the licences and training.

Meanwhile the most ardent supporters of gun control, the feckless Greens, are presently campaigning in Queensland to reverse laws that are working very effectively to disrupt the outlaw motorcycle gangs responsible for major drug trafficking and violence.

ONTHEBEACH...

We've had this discussion before ! The gun laws, whether flawed or not, come from the politicians - OK ! If you reckon you can do better, stand for parliament ! Mate, you're attitude towards police per se is wearing real thin my friend. I couldn't give a toss whether you're trying to get value for dollar or not. First, you must identify the 'correct' target ? And on this issue you're not even on the cardboard !

o sung wu,

With respect, you are misinterpreting criticism of policy as criticism of the police.

onthebeach,
You are full of it and always have been where police are concerned. You would be the first to seek help from the police if you were threatened and the last to say thank you.

chrisgaff1000,

You might do me the service and politeness of making your criticisms specific to my comments. I am more than willing to discuss anything I have posted.

The ball is in your court, be specific and factual and I will oblige you accordingly.