Guns made it possible for Australia to have a virtual private army.
Guns were there if needed to protect property and families and the individual.

And along came John Howard chasing headlines and votes.
Then came the mad idiot that caused mayhem and death at Port Arthur.
Then PM Howard jumped on the political bandwagon and outlawed guns among most of Australia's law abiding and decent citizens.

Thousands of people are killed on roads but cars are not made illegal.

So what should happen if and when a throat slitting intruder starts butchers people in the street or comes into our home?
Should we just find the phone and call and answer the operator’s questions and then wait 5 or more minutes for police to get the message and respond and arrive - while the throat slitting or other bloodshed and killing continues?

Why should a competent responsible husband or wife not have a rifle or shotgun to defend themselves or family or neighbours?
Surely we have a right to protect ourselves.
As with road safety, gun safety could be part of obtaining a license.

Criminals can still get guns, pistols included. Knives too, and there seems no difference from being dead from a gun or knife or from mass killing by a bomb.

Gun laws in Australia should be reviewed because of the new danger from throat slitting's and foreign brainwashing agenda.
Even the radicals and terrorists already have or can get guns or bomb materials.

Who knows how long it may be before a mob of killers begin to invade house to house along your street? Think about it. Not impossible.

There are not enough police and nor are they adequately equipped to deal with terror mob butchers and killers. They should be fully equipped.

We are no longer as safe as we could be, if we were at least armed with a bolt action low magazine-capacity rifle that would increase our safety.

Australia could once again have it's own unseen private army. Why not?

//Who knows how long it may be before a mob of killers begin to invade house to house along your street? Think about it. Not impossible.//

No, not impossible. Just like the invading swarms of killer bees. How do you shoot a swarm of bees?

Or the triffids. How do you fire a gun after the triffids have you made blind? Or the army of giant, hyper-intelligent crabs that I just know are going to walk out of the ocean any day now and enslave mankind - how will our puny bullets penetrate their power armour? Think about it. Not impossible.

Just extremely bloody unlikely and, frankly, a bit silly to be entertaining paranoid fantasies about.

We will never have a "private army". That would really have have the politicians packing the proverbial. Gun control is like any other control from the top down: it keeps us powerless, which is what governments want.

While there is sense in restricting certain firearms, I think that the control over ordinary sporting shooters is the most draconian in the "free" world, particularly when there is nothing the 'brave' politicians are able to do about the ample supply of illegal firearms to criminals and terrorists. I have no need of firearms these days, and I think the notion of keeping them for 'self defence' is a dangerous and unecessary. But, I do support the legitimate gun lobby wanting firearms for real reasons. Who knows what they will decide we shouldn't have next?

Soldiers enter streets and dwellings to find enemies, perhaps legally.
Radical rebels do it to take food and hostages and kill opposition to instill terror.
The Port Arthur dill did it by himself in the street of an old settlement.

As we have a right to self defence then it follows that we have a right to an adequate means of such defence.

In Australia it is a criminal ofence to possess anything for the purpose of self defence.

Seems a bit stupid.

This topic has been done to death on the forum, and is about as interesting as watching re-runs of John Wayne shooting Comanches in one of his stupid old westerns.

To ask a question of gunnie Is Mise, me old sparing partner on this very subject. Please explain how the "Self Defense" nonsense you always go on about, explain exactly how it would work? I expect some straight shooting from you Is Mise, I don't want you ducking for cover as you usually do! Dodge City here we come.

A quote from the gunnies number one pin up boy in Canberra Senator David (Lunatic) Leyonhjelm, he said he would be happy to let police "lie on the side of the road and bleed to death". This is the phony who claims to be a Liberal/Democrat, he is neither liberal or democratic, more likely the head of the storm troopers!

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/video-shows-senator-david-leyonhjelm-saying-he-would-be-happy-to-let-police-bleed-to-death-20161021-gs7ljh.html

As we have a right to self defence then it follows that we have a right to an adequate means of such defence.

Do you disagree with that statement, Paul?

If so, why so?

Hi IM,
That may be so, but that prompts the question of what is a reasonable limit on those means.

Most assaults on the person are not perpetrated by criminals going about armed looking to attack people. Those are a small proportion of the total. The majority of serious violence is perpetrated by people who know each other who find themselves in situations that escalate out of control into violence.

The best means of defence is avoidance. Ask the SAS fellas, they know a few things about that sort of stuff. If avoidance fails, then what is needed is an ability to bring overwhelming force, which is where the cops come in.

If a situation deteriorates to the point of violence, then the last thing we need in civilian populations is two people armed with guns pinging shots at each other. Have a look at the US, where there are so many people shot by cops, often in the mistaken fear they are carrying a weapon.

The game isn't worth the candle.

If there are very few guns available to the general public then we don't need guns for self defence. A golf club or baseball bat perhaps but you don't protect yourself with a gun against someone who doesn't have a gun.
And what are the chances of a home invasion by someone with a gun? Far less than the chance of being killed in a car accident or dying from an obesity related illness.
In fact, if we are so concerned with our mortality we would ban all foods containing added sugar because that is a far greater risk to anyone's health.

Big Nana,

If one is in one's 83 year, as I am, and is attacked by a 6 foot tall, 20 year old weighing 15 stone, what would you suggest that such a peson use to defend themselves?

The question is, how safe are the rest of us from an armed 83 year old trotting around scared of every passing youth?

There are many guns still available and soon probably also machine guns. If not already available.

When many guns used to be available there were not the stabbings or shootings that occur these days. Prohibition-type gun laws are not stopping those with a mind to rob or kill.

If a citizen had a rifle in their car at Port Arthur it may have been possible to shoot that idiot before he killed so many people. It's that possibility that should be understood and respected.

Many people die from smoking cigarettes that government continues to reap tax revenue from? Are gun laws really about public safety?

On islands off Australia's shores there is now chronic non communicable disease killing people every day and cause and solutions are ignored.
A few dead from guns in Australia is nothing in comparison. Seafood devastation linked malnutrition and associated death in the South Pacific Islands is a disgrace, right on Canberra's doorstep.

Should decent law abiding Australians be ignored or denied their right to medical attention, or be denied their right to have a gun to prevent death?

I suppose soon someone will post about more people dead from bee stings than from sharks, rhetoric told without reality about a tiny sting compared to being ripped apart while still alive.

Times have changed.
Terrorism is here with indications of worse to come.
We have a right to defend ourselves when police are not quickly on hand.

Police are under-equipped anyway.
Police should also have shotguns and rifles readily on hand.
Pistols are deadly but are virtually impossible to accurately aim.
So much for help from police against a rifle or even a shotgun.

All very well, Craig, but how would you suggest that an elderly person defend themselves?

This 83 year old has no worries as he was trained in the art of killing/defence by some very thorough servants of the Australian Government and still has the capacity, and the willingness, to use some very dirty and up close and personal tricks if it ever proves necessary.

My guns can stay in their triple locked storage and my pistols in their safe, wrapped in oily rags, kept tight by elastic bands; I only take them out once a month to go to the range.

I'm by no means suggesting you can't be trusted, Is Mise, but there are lots of people who might be less capable and when faced with a perceived threat those people might be tempted to shoot first and ask questions later.

There was a case a few years back of an old bloke shooting and killing a kid who was sheltering in his carport, IIRC.

I do understand that with age comes a reduced ability to defend oneself, but there also comes a reduced threat. Assault of the elderly in their homes is not a common crime and it rightly earns very serious punishment. Leave the gunslinging to the cops, I say.

Is Mise, what you are saying is you have a predisposition to killing being trained in the art of killing/defense and all. Your explanation of "self defense" is rather vague. How exactly do you see guns and self defense. No good having a loaded gun for self defense, if it is at home in the kids toy box, and you are down at the railway station being mugged by a gang of nuns. Obviously you believe you should have the right to carry, presumably, a concealed weapon on your person at all times. Vagary is another form of ducking and weaving, and I said no ducking and weaving!

What about a comment on the quote by Lunatic Leyonhjelm, does your silence indicate your full support for dead coppers on the roadside?

Let's say a driver has a predisposition toward helping police in trouble and one day observes a traffic cop kneeling on the roadside with a bearded man with a knife standing behind.

Under present gun laws the driver would almost certainly have to leave the policeman to his death, leaving the body too. Why stay?

If gun laws were as they used to be the driver would likely have a rifle in the car and could demand the knifeman drop the knife and untie the policeman.

Similar could happen in a suburban street or outside a bank where a police department employee was about to be shot dead by a radicalized fool.

Times have changed.
Australians now face extremism and an increased population with increased danger from criminal and drug induced behaviour.
Australians have a right to life and to help preserve life of others.

What is the big deal about guns, is it gunophobia?
Radical people these days use knives or bombs or 'out of control' vehicles to kill.
How many beheadings are done with guns? Absolutely none.

Present gun laws should be reviewed and the tight controls made more sensible and reasonable as they were previously.

Eighty two year old people also have a right to peace of mind from having a gun close by.

Years ago it was sometimes said that Australia had sufficient private gun defence to form an army.

Guns also make criminals and butchers think twice about committing crimes.

It appears most murders done by guns in Australian homes are by legitimate gun owners. More guns make weapons of death more readily available to angry gun holders. Drive by shootings are drug related or honor killings. The general public have no threat from these. If you feel threatened by criminals I suggest you build a solid steel cage near the front of your house so bullets cannot penetrate and sleep in there. The answer to the fearful, insecure and paranoid.

Or he could use his phone to call 000? You know, "emergency, please help, there's a cop being threatened by an armed man at this location"?

You're not thinking this stuff through, JF. The last thing we need is vigilantes. To be honest, having someone who thinks the way you do running around with a loaded weapon scares the crap out of me.

I am curious though, what does the putative driver do if the bloke doing the threatening doesn't have a beard? Presumably just drives on, nothing to see here, just a good old fashioned redne...blooded aussie having some fun with the fuzz...?

Who knew beards could be so dangerous?

I'm also wondering what it is that's especially bad about being shot dead by a "radicalised" fool as compared to the standard homegrown variety of fool?

So many questions...

Guns and self-defence is dangerous talk. I used to have such fantasies when I was much younger. But too often, the wrong people, even family members, have been killed by people 'protecting themselves with guns. And, if you shoot an unarmed person, you are in big trouble with the law. I would be interested to know just how many times these people 'needing' firearms for protection have ever had to actually use them for protection. Besides, by the time you unlock the weapon, get the seperately stored ammuntion to load them, perhaps after getting a gun out of its "oily rag", it would be too late. If you have a gun ready to go, you are breaking the law. Some people have a warped attitude to society and an unnecessarily fearful attitude about society. In your own home, locking up properly is the best fence. Away from home, you have no right to be toting a gun openly, at the ready. Self defence is a phurpy when it comes to firearms.

Paul,

"What about a comment on the quote by Lunatic Leyonhjelm, does your silence indicate your full support for dead coppers on the roadside?"

What was the full context of what he said, is the quote out of context?

Every Australian has the right to defend themselves, or don't you agree?

As a firearm is sometimes the only adequate means of defence then every Australian has the right to have a firearm, just as every US citizen has that same right.

Josephus,

You seem to know little about bullets or cages.
How does a cage stop a bullet?

By stopping heavily armed paranoid would be vigilantes roaming the streets presumably.

Is Mise,

"Every Australian has the right to defend themselves,"
"every Australian has the right to have a firearm"

I catch public transport in Sydney, often. Just yesterday I was on a train and in the carriage was this bloke who kept making loud incoherent noises, and biting his hand. I presume he was Australian, and according to you; every Australian has the right to have a firearm. I sincerely hope that bloke, and many others like him who catch public transport every day of the week in Sydney, never ever are given the right to have a firearm.
Is Mise I don't know where you hang out, maybe all is just fine and dandy in Sleepy Hollow, but the reality of the big city is somewhat different, plenty of nutters, and unstable people around who I would not trust with a pea shooter, let alone a real gun!

Paul,

Everyone has the right to defend themselves, therefore they have the right to an adequate mans of such defence, it's what is called a natural right.

Do you ever consider that it might be better if you stopped biting your nuckles in public?

Imagine dialling ooo with no signal on a country road or in the city with no credit or battery or even no phone.

Try stopping a knife wielding radical. Times have changed and are getting worse.

Really,how many people are killed by guns compared to killed by car accidents or smoking.
Think that through.

Every Australian is entitled to drive a car but it is sensible law that stops mental cases learning to drive and geting a license.

There is obviously increased danger these days from knife wielding druggies and radicals that we did not have to contend with previously.

What should we do, keep guns banned and die from a knife attack?
Think that one through.

True story. A bloke protecting his property with a gun shot his own daughter dead as she came through a window after being out later than she should have been. I'll bet that made him feel pretty good.

Guns don't kill people, algae kills people...

Had a look at that link on the other thread yet mate? It's radical!

Go by results.

33000 Yanks shot dead by other Yanks each year because of the country's open slather with gun possession and ownership. Scaling down from America's 300m population to Australia's 23m, this means 33000 x 23/300 = 2530 Australians shot dead each year if we went down the American path as our tiny but bellowing minority of gun freaks are demanding, including on OLO. Mr Howard's reforms were in addition to background gun restrictions which were already keeping most Australians safe. Mr Howard, by shutting off the series of gun massacres up to and including Port Arthur, saved many Australians' lives though of course it would have been about 2500 a year had we already been operating along the US Slave Owners' Amendment lines demanded by the current crop of Australian gun freaks.

We, the vast majority who wouldn't have voted for Mr Leyonhjelm in a fit, are being subjected to this steady drumbeat of demands by hobbyists who can't enjoy a day out without killing at least SOMETHING living. Those are the deadly enemies of the Australian people who will prevail (look how easily they suborned Mr Turnbull) unless we follow US President Truman's warning: “When a finger creeps under the door stamp on it or it's followed by a hand and soon has you by the throat”

Arming everyone with guns mean the predators shoot the prey dead while the prey are scrabbling around looking for their gun. Every time.

America has hand guns for whoever for all occasions so what sense is there spinning their statistics into Australia where pistols virtually always have been and remain tabu?

Is Mise, do you stand by your statement that;

"every Australian has the right to have a firearm". Such a statement is detached from reality.

Imagine dialling ooo with no signal on a country road or in the city with no credit or battery or even no phone.

Yeah right, by the way you can dial 000 without credit, but I must admit is difficult to do without a phone. Or down a coal mine with 10,000 elephants thundering by during a hail storm, with or without credit.

You can come up with all the ridiculous, way out scenarios to justify the right to possess and use firearms you like. The truth is it has nothing to do with "self protection" but every thing to do with an extreme right wing agenda. Many of these extremest believe Australia is under threat from both external and internal forces which the existing authorities are in league with, or unwilling to combat, and therefore they, along with the general armed and trained public must be prepared to do battle when the time for action is at hand. Arming and organizing the citizenry is all part of being prepared to defend their perverted form of liberal democracy. If a few thousand have to die in the mean time, well its seen as a small price to pay.

You guys have played too many violent video games and have become insecure. Grow up! When I was young I shot rabbits and foxes on the farm. In the last 50 years I have never used a firearm. I have never been threatened or needed the use of a weapon to defend myself. I have killed many snakes by the use of a stick or hoe. Only the short tempered need guns to defend themselves, because they quickly make enemies. If you are driving around with a firearm in your car, you are breaking the law and are prone to use it in road rage.

I really don't understand what all the fuss is about, over this Turkish Lever Action, 12g, 7 shot Shotgun. If the existing laws permit the current model with a capacity of 5 rds, why not 7 rds? As somebody stated herein, a shotgun in the hands of a relatively skilled shooter, is an effective man-killer at reasonably close ranges depending of course on what loads they choose? The standard OO buckshot with 9 x .33cal pellets being the preferred load.

At the end of the day, anyone with reasonable proficiency with a 'shotty' would be as lethal with a 12g in side by side configuration, as this Lever Action thing with 7 x 12g cartridges on board.

If our Law-makers are so concerned with this Turkish piece, capable of accepting 7 rds. in 12g, then we should totally ban ALL shotguns, which would make no sense whatsoever. Moreover, the only 'shotty' that would concern me marginally, would be anything in the self- loading configuration like your; Benelli M1 Tactical; the Berretta 1200FP; or Mossberg 9200A1; or my favourite in the self-loaders, the Remington mod. 11R (Riot) or Remington 11-87P(Police).

My preferred Gun over all models is the stock standard, Remington 870P (tried 'n tested) - The Smith & Wesson mod.3000 is a real classic for a slide action, no longer mfg. now?

The big daddy of 'em all, is undoubtedly the South African 'Striker' 12g, carrying 12 rds in a rotary magazine, with a folding stock! I had the opportunity to dispatch 24 rounds out of it, when in the USA some years back, though 'feeding' issues presented, as the action warmed, and 'cycled' too rapidly?

Wouldn't our pathetic, weak-kneed politicians go 'ape-ship' if you tried to import any of these little fellas, into a very tender hearted OZ hey? Another (political) example of ballistic masturbation?

Paul,

"As a firearm is sometimes the only adequate means of defence then every Australian has the right to have a firearm, just as every US citizen has that same right."

I stand by that statement, because it is true.
As self defence is a right then having the means to defend is also a right, simple as that.

Don't you agree that we have the right to defend ourselves against unlawful attack?

Home Hill Stabbing Frenzy Lasted Hours

http://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/crime/home-hill-hostel-owner-stabbing-frenzy-lasted-hours/news-story/a8b50e417c9ed2e87aa12bbb4d41dd99

What about if there aren't any police to control a situation?
(They could've flown a chopper there from Lavarack)
Should the general public have been subjected to this for hours?
What would the anti-gunners recommend for situations like this?

If there aren't police to protect the general public, what then?

AC,
Seriously disturbed individuals are very rare. The guy at Home Hill was seriously disturbed. How do you think the presence of elderly vigilantes running around with loaded firearms would have helped the victims of that attack? Would the attack have been even more traumatic for all concerned if some would-be John Wayne tried to shoot the guy and had his weapon taken away and used against him, or if some other innocent was shot in the course of our hero's campaign for truth, justice and the blowing of people away?

Personally, I say keep playing those wargames on the computer fellas, it's the best place for guns.

Is Mise,

Your belief that all of us have the right to defend ourselves is not unreasonable, what is contentious is how far that right should extend. Should all citizens be given the right to carry a firearm to effect that right of self defense, in my opinion, no!
I say the negatives associated with uncontrolled gun use and ownership far outweigh any possible benefits. In the ideal world your notion might work, the goodies would shoot the badies, and all would be well. Unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world, and a lot of innocent people would be hurt by what you want.
In NSW on the whole we have a very good, well trained, police force to enforce the laws, we also have responsible elected representatives to make those laws, and a judicial system to administer the law. What you propose is a undisciplined, uncontrolled system which will be unworkable and extremely dangerous!

Can I ask? How many times have you gun toting guys been threatened in your life that you have felt the need to use a gun to murder a person you felt was going to kill you? Did they have a gun? Are you suggesting abused women in self defense use a gun to kill a threat.

Just Who would use a gun in self defense?

The only use of a gun in Australia by the public is for protection of stock from wild dogs or pigs etc.

Can I also ask a question?
How many criminals have thought twice and not gone ahead with a crime because they thought the intended victim may be armed?

Looking back 50 years in Australia it seems obvious that increase in home invasion coincides with taking away guns from the public.

Ah JF, you've hit the nail on the head. What we need is a big sign on every house saying "Go away criminals, I play Counterstrike".

Dunno why we didn't think of that earlier.

Put the sign/s on those despatch boxes in Parliament

Craig,

Out in Moree (Western NSW)there are such signs in the front windows of people's homes.

Examples: "This house is insured by WINCHESTER"

"REMINGTON lives here" and similar.

Josephus,

In the years when I was licenced to "Possess, use, and carry" a pistol I was twice the intended victim of robbery, or possibly worse, but I didn't need to shoot or even draw my pistol, I merely smiled and pulled my coat open to show the .455 Colt that I then carried.
Instant record sprint into the distance.

Paul,

" What you propose is a undisciplined, uncontrolled system which will be unworkable and extremely dangerous!"

Where did I propose that?
Don't let your Green imagination run away with you.

Self defence is a natural right and we naturally have that right.

Is Mise,
The reality is that heavily armed societies are societies with high rates of death by firearm and that most of those who die are innocent victims of the users of said firearms. Your right to carry a weapon to make you feel more powerful in your old age doesn't trump everyone else's right to feel safe from some nutjob with a portable cannon and a grievance.

By all means go to the range and have fun, I quite like a bit of a whoopee shoot at the range myself. The moment you try to bring the range home is the moment you move from sporting shooter to public menace. That's why the gun laws exist.

Craig,

Switzerland 45.7 per 100 population
Australia 21.7/100

Both rather law abiding, wouln't you say?

http://i/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

Craig,

You talk about reality.

Reality is nobody here is talking about Australian society wanting to be heavily armed.

Anyway as for the high rates of death in a heavily armed society as you mention, would you say citizens of Mosul are heavily armed? Look at the high rates of death there from government opposition rebels including absolute criminal gangs and bloodthirsty killers with smuggled guns.

I think present restrictive gun laws exist as they do in Australia because the public were never given a chance by media to be heard.
The restrictive gun law legislation was a snow job quietly put in place and allowed by media without due debate, just like trams are being put back onto roads and streets where they take parking space and put thousands out of business, all without honest news and informed debate.

Shooting rabbits used to be an enjoyable pastime for many and also helped to provide affordable food for whole nations.

Yes, Is Mise, Switzerland is a remarkable exception to the rule. One significant reason for that is that the Swiss are very prosperous. There is very little crime of any kind in the country.

Property crime is only ever driven by either greed or need. The Swiss have managed to work out a way to reduce both. Got any ideas for how we might do the same here?

Crime against the person almost always involves people who are in some way associated. Making guns freely available only exacerbates its consequences.

A little more on this ridiculous 'self-defence' by shooting. According to police sources, if you are attacked from within 20 metres, you have no time to draw a gun, let alone use it. You have more chance of having the gun taken off you in a tussle and getting yourself shot. These people crapping on about defending themselves are either paranoid or have been watching too much crap TV. Most people (relatively few of the population) are attacked in places and situations where it is not sensible to be. I was once told by an experienced guide, 'crocodiles do not eat intelligent people'. The same applies to thugs.

Hi IS MISE...

You say inter alia, '...Self defence is a natural right and we naturally have that right...'. Correct, only NOT with a firearm, unless you're appropriately licensed to carry a F/A, expressly for that purpose.

However you may defend yourself with any other article, as long as that article is not carried for the explicit purpose of defending yourself.

It's been often said, 'the law is an Ass'. However I would say it's our politicians who clearly represent, that which is regularly relinquished from the rear end of that humble 'Ass'?

o sung wu,

I would like to give an example in order to gratefully hear your opinion.

Let's say I live in a small country town. It is late at night. The local police station is usually closed because the main police station 30 miles away looks after the whole area as a way of saving police resources.

At about 1 am I hear screaming in the neighbours house, then more screaming. I become concerned. usually that neighbour is quiet and decent, the husband too. I know them. Very very respectable.

I then hear a moaning sound coming from that house and then I immediately call the police but the line is busy. I hear another short scream.

I try to call the police again, still busy.
I get my rifle and go quietly toward the neighbors house.
I see a strange car at an angle in the driveway and a man is standing near the drivers door. I hear another scream but the man at the car does nothing about the scream. I hear another scream.

I fire a shot in the air from my 222 and it makes a very loud noise in the night.
Another man comes out of the door of the house. The man at the car quickly gets into the drivers seat.
The man coming from the house fires a shot at me, and then another shot.
I hear what I think is a bullet whizzing past my head.
I fire back and that man falls dead.
The man in the car gets out with his hands up.

The husband comes out of the house and helps tie up the car driver.
We both contact the police and they take 30 minutes to arrive.

Now, I carried my 222 over there to defend myself.
Is that illegal under present law, o sung wu?

A Melbourne Jewelry store owner was able to defend off three armed robbers today by yelling at them to leave. Learn how to defend yourself in the case of a home invasion, and you do not need a firearm. There is many technical appliances today that can prevent home invasions.

Josephus

Do you think electronic shark repellant might be technical enough to frighten a home invader out of you house?

Hi there JF AUS...

An interesting scenario you present us all with. If I was the attending detective my first question would be;

Why did you initially approach this house, bearing a F/A, and what was your intention when there? Why did you discharge two shots from your F/A? Was your life or anor's under immediate threat of serious injury or death, when you initially discharged your F/A?

JF AUS, depending on your answers, you could well be found culpable and face a charge of manslaughter even murder? Lets assume for a moment, the individual who alighted from the M/V with his hands raised, claims his friend who was in the process of emerging from the house, thought the original two shots, were directed at him, and seeing that you're armed, he therefore fired upon you in self defence, because he feared for his life? Despite the fact he may well have committed crime(s) therein, is substantially immaterial JF AUS.

It is very much what's in the mind of the Coroner that counts, not so much what police may contend, in the facts as disclosed. You've approached this dwelling house, while armed, why? What was your intention with the F/A? What was your reason for discharging your F/A in or near a public street or place? A smart silk could tire you up, every which way.

If the detectives are onside, they can potentially 'soften' the circumstances somewhat, of your contemporaneous actions of the night in question. By asserting on your behalf, as a concerned resident, after failing on several occasions to arouse and galvanize police attendance, you tried to render aid as best you could as a decent public spirited citizen. You could well get a pat on the head, for being a heroic resident.

JF AUS...Believe me my friend, introduce a F/A into any equation you like in this day and age. Beware, it can turn 'pear-shape' faster than one can imagine, in this climate of the righteous LEFT?

The gunnies would have us believe that crime in Australia is out of control, and police forces are failing in their duty. Statistics supplied by the ABS in fact paint a somewhat different picture, your chances of being a victim of violent crime is diminishing, whilst your chances of becoming a victim of non violent crime, the white collar stuff, such as fraud is on the increase. You are more likely to be robbed by a bloke in a business suit than someone in a balaclava.
Do the gunnies suggest you take your six shooter and blow a hole in the crocked financial dealer in the Gucci shoes and suit who robbed you of your life savings, or just the balaclava bandit who stole your wallet with fifty bucks in it?

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4510.0

Is Mise do you not advocate for self defense purposes, guns for prisoners in jails, you did say all Australians, so they can defend themselves against attacks by other inmates. Do you also advocate guns for children in kindergartens, you did say all Australians, to defend themselves against the other more violent child. What about people in mental institutions, do they not have that all encompassing right to defend themselves with a gun. After all, you did say all Australians.

o sung wu.

Let's say the wife in the house died next day from injury from torture to get her pin number. It was the torture that made her scream.
And the first shot from the 222 was to distract the lion off what it was eating. It was a shot intended to attract attention and it worked.

Would I be charged that night?

Where is onthebeach, OTB, Beachy Boy or what ever you want to call him? He is usually right (far right) onto this kind of stuff. Has he been kidnapped by a gang of wild 'Amazonian Greenie Feminists', who are now having their way with him. Has he seen the light and joined the fantastic, fabulous, 'Fabian Society'. Could he have gone to American in a last ditched effort to save The Donald's presidential campaign. Could he be in Syria fighting with you know who. Could he have eloped with the lovely Pauline, and they are not enjoying a love nest in the back blocks of the sunny state of Queensland.

Is Mise as your 2IC in these debates, what have you done with your very own Sancho Panza? I miss the old F@$t, strange but true.

Or did his puter decide it had, had enough of his torment of the keyboard and it has committed computer hari kari by infecting itself with the dreaded 'Trotskists Virus' supplied by pinko Bill?

LOL
Goodnight

Paul.

If you can stop being ridiculous for a moment, do you not think that all Australians, in fact people everywhere, have the right to self defence?

ttfn,

It takes the average person at least 5 seconds to move 20 metres from a standing start, I can draw and fire in 3 seconds and there are many faster than I am.

And for those who think that pistols are not accurate, the .357 Smith and Wesson Magnum revolver, in the 1930s was developed for shooting at ranges up to 600 metres.

I have, in the past, put all 6 shots from a .36 Navy Colt, 1851 model, into a the upper torso area of a figure target at 100 yards

Is Mise,

Your question is too broad and encompassing to be given a simple yes/no answer. We live in a complex society and there are ramification to consider before giving such an undertaking. If I say yes, you will come back with the line that self defense should include the indiscriminate right to own and use firearms, without any consideration of the consequences, so I'm not going to say yes.

It is ridiculous to say guns should be made available to jail inmates, kindergarten children and the mentally insane for self defense, but it is also ridiculous to say all.

"I can draw and fire in 3 seconds and there are many faster than I am." Who are they Is Mise Wyatt Earp and Billy The Kid? Dodge City here we come.
"I have, in the past, put all 6 shots from a .36 Navy Colt, 1851 model, into a the upper torso" What did he do, steal your ice cream when you were in third class at school? Lucky he didn't take your Iced Vo Vo's as well, then he really would have copped it!

Paul,

It is very simple, either we have the right to defend ourselves or we don't.
Whether or not the State recognizes the right doesn't effect the existence of the right.

As we have the right to defend ourselves then we have the right to an effective means of defence, even if the State denies us the means.

In Australia possession of a desired means of defence is forbidden by the State, be it a firearm or a walking stick; that's why I have a Doctor's Letter to the effect that for medical reasons I need such a stick and I do, it helps getting out of the car and where there are steep kerbs and gutters.

Well to do criminals would probably lobby for no guns and no protection.

Maybe that's why politicians made the law as it is. LOL.TIC

Is Mise,

And just where, in public do you tote these irons, cowboy? Nowhere, because it is illegal to do so. You are probably a real Wyatt Earp in front of your bedroom mirror. Unfortunately for you, there is nowhere that you are lilkely to be assaulted where you can legally 'go armed'. BTW, just how many times have you been assaulted? Have you ever been at risk of being assaulted? Do you live in a lawless society where assault is common?

ttfn,

Like all cowboys Ah totes mah pistols down on the range.
In my case on the Government funded and licenced local pistolrange; a much improved range since the 1996 firearms laws came in, in fact the range was derelect at that time but with generous Government (taxpayer) assistance there is now a 300 metre rifle range and a 50 metre pistol range, both with concrete firing points with steel framed and steel roofed overhead cover.

We are waiting on a grant for the roadways and improved toilet facilities.

What I was talking about was the speed with which I can react and I'm getting slow these days, you orta see the fast lads in action.

Exactly, ttbn.

What you say there is exactly why the present overly restrictive gun law and unreasonable self protection laws need to be revised and made practical and sensible.

The real issue is!
Do we have the right to personally kill / murder one whom we feel threatened by?

Such a claim of self defense by the use of guns is socially backward paranoia. Similarly to use any weapon in offense or self defense is criminal. The person who is insecure and cannot relate civil to others may feel the need to carry weapons but a mature and secure person should not need to ever lay a hand on another.

Josephus,

This is the 21st Century, and retaliation in self defence is lawful in Australia, as has been proven numerous times in Court.
We do indeed have the right to defend ourselves against unlawful attack.

Are people attacked in Australia for no reason at all?

Yes, that's why the State Governments have seen fit to introduce the
'One Punch' laws.

IS MISE...

You're now claiming with a a black powder .36 cal Colt you could place six/100yrds into a man sized upper torso target? I'm sorry I just don't believe you ! Your credibility is now utterly shot with me ! Unless of course you're merely yanking our collective chain?

Hi there PAUL1405...

Why is it whenever the subject of guns is raised, there seems to be a strange climate of metamorphism emerge with some people, whereupon they become very precious, intransigent even aggressive, with those people who they suspect are trying to separate them, from their guns? Is it some form of macho tribalism, or is it a case without their firearm(s) they are simply ordinary placid males?

I found this type of behaviour quite disconcerting even ambiguous whenever I've needed to ask a shooter to produce his valid F/A licence. After all I was only doing my job, not mounting some sort of challenge upon his male independence, I'm buggered if I know. It never occurred on the rare occasion I asked a female for her F/A licence?

Is Mise,

You did say you are 83 did you not? If that's right, you are one hell of a gunman. However, as you have told me where you carry your guns (on the range) I can only assume that you have some very nasty types there with you, if you truly concerned about self-defence. And they are armed, too!

The fact remains, anywhere you are like to be physically threatened, except in your own home where good locks are the best defence, and where gunplay is just as likely to be more detrimental to you than an assailant, you are legally not allowed to go armed, and you will never be allowed to in Australia. KYPD, stick to targets, and forget the miniscule chance of being assaulted. A bloke who needs a walking stick to get out of his car (as you told us you do) would you be better off whacking thugs in the nuts with the the stick than waving a gun around, especially a cap & ball Navy Colt which can misfire anytime.

It now seems Is Mise wants to arm people in the street who are punched from behind and knocked to the ground by drunken thugs, so as to defend themselves from these thugs. We already have street shootings we do not need more guns on the street, so we have two dead instead of one

o sung wu

I'm not kidding, six shots into the target at 100yards is common with black powder pistols, Colt, Remington, and Rogers & Spencers particularly.
Take a trip out to Sackville to the Sydney Colonial Muzzle Loading Club on a rangeday and I'm sure that you'll get any number of demonstrations.
6 inch groups at 50 yards are not uncommon in ordinary competition and that translates into 12 inches at 100 yards, which is less than the torso area of a military figure target.
Now think on this, I one fired the annual rifle practice with a pistol and etained my crossed rifle marksman's badge, but there was a trick to it!!

For all those worried about the Adler and high capacity fast shot guns, all of the legal pump action, lever action whatever rifles can also fire shot shells, in fact for one calibre there are boxes of shot shells to fit, available in the local sports store/garage/rural provider's store; if he runs out he can have a reorder within a week.

ttfn,

Very droll, Paul will have to look to his laurels.

You asked had I ever been assaulted, not often.
The last time was about twenty-five years ago in York St, Sydney, on the way back to my hotel after work, about 5:oo pm.

A lout of about twenty threw a stiff arm at about throatt height, I chopped him in the upper arm mussels with my left hand, grabbed his collar with my right and stomped his right instep with a work boot, then stomped his toes on the same foot.

After he stopped howling he said that he was only joking, I wasn't.

Josephus,

Put any twist that you like onto what I say, that's up to you.

My main use of the walking stick when getting out of cars is to make sure that the door doesn't swing shut, around here and in many small country towns the camber is rather steep at the kerb.

Never use a walking stick for a hit to the nuts, the preferred strike point is either ear, or, as other old soldiers will know, a thrust to the stomache or to the throat, (although the latter can be fatal).

If you want to know just how effective a walking stick can be, look up Indian Stick Fighting on Google.

An Indian Police Inspector told me that the blow to the ear was much to be preferred to a blow to the face, he said that it was not only more effective but there was much less chance of paper work!!

Hi o sung wu,

You might be right, maybe there is some form of macho tribalism, associated with gun ownership. In my case my own son has a gun licence, I call it "unrestricted", he got it when he was working in the bush a few years ago to shoots pest animals, whatever class of licence that is. He is now a public bus driver, and he comes across the regular nutters almost daily, some very aggressive people at times. I would put it to is Mise should public bus drives be issued firearms, as they are put in a confrontational/violent position almost daily. But I do not believe that should give them the right to tote a gun.

The issuing of universal gun licences to combat a perceived violent society is self fore-filling. Initially few would take up the opportunity, but as they did more and more gun violence would occur, resulting in more and more people obtaining a gun for self defense in a growing violent society.

As a retired policeman, can you tell me why police in general are against universal gun ownership. I'm sure they have very good reasons for it, like it would increase their vulnerability and the general public even when dealing with sometimes minor matters.

Is Mise, I even when against my own party when you gunnies got the ANZAC Range at Malabar back. As a Green I can't be fairer than that.

For all those that think that pistols are useless except at close range

"The revolver is usually the subject when long-range handgunning is discussed. Ed McGivern, that wizard of fast and fancy revolver shooting, once said that armed with a good 6-inch .357 magnum revolver he felt he was the match of any man with a 94 Winchester to 600 yards. While I might not entirely agree with that statement, I feel completely comfortable carrying the 6-inch Smith during deer season as my only gun."

http://www.gundigest.com/guns/handgun-reviews-articles/handloading_longrangehandgun

o sung wu,

Think on this one, I used to demonstrate the effectivness of the Owen gun at long range by riddling the standard figure target at 400 yards, at the same range 44 gallon drums could be penetrated with the 9mm but on new drums they wouldn't go through the other side but would dent it.
Aiming picture was base of the target resting on the outside top of the rear sight and the underside of the foresight bracket resting on the top of the target.

Paul,

You should know by now that the more guns that there are in civilian hands means less crime, bye the way your recent comparison of me to Wyatt Earp was a real compliment.

Saw a nice shot (sorry, picture!!) of you and your partner; was on TV I think, about a fortnight ago, you scrub up well!.

Is Mise I always agree with anything that good old Mr Ed has to say.

"I feel completely comfortable carrying the 6-inch Smith during deer season as my only gun."

Oh dear, and how do the deer's feel about that. What have the poor deer's done!

When is hunting season for hunters, so I can feel comfortable hunting a few rough hunters with my Howitzer. I can get off 600 shots in 6 seconds with my trusty weapon.

Is Mise should people be able to carry machetes for self defense? I have a fear of guns, my Howitzer is very noisy and the neighbors complain when I do a bit of target practice, so I would be comfortable with a very large knife like instrument. It has a few positives, does not require expensive ammunition, its results are plain to see, a deterrent to others. My partner has bro's who are pretty handy with one, 'Three Finger' Tom, can take the top of a coconut quicker that you can say "dead deer", therefore free lessons for me. Doesn't make a noise, wont wake up the neighbors etc etc.
Sounds like the ideal weapon of self defense to me. what do you think?

"44 gallon drums could be penetrated with the 9mm but on new drums they wouldn't go through the other side but would dent it."

A drum with a hole in it, is about as useless as hunter with a gun!

Is Mise you may quote me on that.

p/s What have the drums done? Were they simply hanging around with the deer's.

Surely it's obvious a village or a nation where various people are known to be armed, is less likely to be attacked than if unarmed.

The deterrent factor is number one in self defense, prevention being better that the cure.
Bullies come to mind, when the odds are not in their favor.

Views of police are sensible views but commissioners follow the political views mostly coming from media.
Sensible police in general know about the advantage of high power heavy automatics. Many police are from the bush where guns are virtually part of normal life.

My views are based on fact I had a 22 after my Dad died when I was 5. I just respected that rifle and never played with it. Later I went onto 240,000 acres in Paroo River country well west of Bourke. Guns were just part of life and I have never heard of any crime or gun accident out there.

Re this thread, I was recently contacted by police about a magnum powerhead I had for diving. In the early days we did not understand shark behavior and a powerhead often kept the heartbeat down. Powerhead's never needed a license though a few weeks ago I had to send a second Stat Dec about the whereabouts of that head, so to close the weapons licensing file.

Looking back on it all there is obvious evidence sensible Australians should be allowed to protect themselves.

I think gun law here should go back to what it was 50 years ago when there was less crime compared to the population number and crimes these days.

Look at the non-sense about howitzers etc on this thread.It nonsense. Non - sence, no sense.

I suggest get back to reality and sensible debate instead of all that waste of time ridiculous paranoid BS.

Is Mise,

You are certainly a hard man. But you picked on poor old Josephus without call. I was the one who mentioned your stick and thugs' nuts.

33 thousand Americans shot dead each year is fact, not paranoid BS. This death toll is sustained by the Second Amendment to their Constitution. Fact, not paranoid BS. The amendment allowing every Tom, Dick and Harry to bear arms was a response to the perceived danger from black slaves seeking freedom and native Americans defending their land. Fact not paranoid BS.

Facts about Australia. A minuscule minority consisting of gun hobbyists are seeking the unravelling of laws enacted to put an end to massacres such as that in Port Arthur. Fact. The laws worked. Fact.

Gun hobbyists are basing their pitch on the right of prey to defend themselves against predators. Fact (just read this thread). Gun-armed predators will get the drop on prey in practically every predator-prey encounter even if the prey are also allowed to own a gun. Obvious to anyone prepared to engage one or two neurones.

The vast majority of Australians are more likely to be prey than predators. Arming predators is therefore a deadly threat to the vast majority of Australians. The tiny number of self-interested hobbyists seeking to impose this can do so only by gaming the political system as they have been seeking to do via the Senate.

To stomp this finger that's appearing under the door, remind your individual pollies whose interests they are supposed to serve. Start with the Adler massacre weapon.

The drums, Paul, were destined to be rubbish bins on Anzac Range (Holdsworthy) and holes in them were very desirable to let water out and stop fermentation of food matter. They also made life easier for the ants who did a sterling job.
.

It is total BS spin to compare American gun happy laws to be in any way similar to the sensible gun laws Australia had 30 years ago.

Total spin right here in print.

It's un-Australian to do that.

A gunnie claims
"It is total BS spin to compare American gun happy laws to be in any way similar to the sensible gun laws Australia had 30 years ago"

He means the "sensible gun laws" under which 35 Australians lost their lives cowering wherever they could to try to stay alive as a gun freak picked them off because he had access to a gun.

In retrospect I would suggest two differences from what Mr Howard did. Firstly, people who kept spare guns in excess of defensible reasons should have had their guns confiscated not purchased. Secondly, the guns should not have been destroyed but securely stockpiled for distribution if (when) the Indos came (come) to enslave us as they enslaved the East Timorese and still enslave the West Papuans.

Hi there Paul1405; JOSEPHUS and TTBN...

The walking stick can be a particularly useful weapon. Notwithstanding the Indian martial arts, have a discipline involving the use of a walking stick or cane, that when used as taught, can be most effective even fatal in some circumstances - Interestingly, most of the worlds martial arts had their origins in the Indian Sub-Continent. 'Kali' goes back over a thousand years even more, so I'm led to understand?

However it's in the Republic of the Philippines where they've exploited a simple bamboo cane, hitherto used for agricultural purposes, and over time developed into one of the most effective martial arts weapons I've seen for sometime. The martial art (for the better use of a word) was originally called Escrima when the Spanish still ruled the country, and after they we removed by the Americans it was later called Arnis. Today, most practitioners pursue 'Modern Arnis', a supremely versatile fighting Art, with a potential for fatal consequences.

From modern Arnis, we've seen them develop and exploit the Art into a skilled knife fighting procedure, employing the Balisong knife or fan blade. Later weaponless modern Arnis emerged, with a total absence of any form of weaponry, including the traditional cane that's used in traditional Arnis itself.

Be assured Gentlemen, I cannot overstate what formidable fighters the Filipino's are, including the diminutive and utterly cute Filipina's, of that little gem, I can personally attest too. I hope it assists?

The Port Arthur incident was tragic but was done by an idiot and that's no justification to ban guns and takeaway self defence opportunity for sensible law abiding citizens.
Even having a rifle in the house can give peace of mind, while being concerned about radical extremists do can do quite the opposite.
We might already have a small force of radicals here that have conned Aus immigration for visas.

Our safety might depend on whether Trump is elected or if things get worse with warmonger secretary Kerry still controlling US mid east policy.

I respect women, no question about that.
I think both US election candidates have sex scandal or otherwise questionable backgrounds.

It's US foreign policy that media should presently be fully investigating and reporting.

O sung wu,

Yes. I've read a couple of books on stick-fighting in India and other places. I liked Is Mises'whack in the ear'ole, too. That would be one of the few uses those little rubber police truncheons of yore would be good for, would it not?

Hi there TTBN...

Indeed, a solid whack around one's ear would certainly make the ol' eyes water for sure. I suppose the only good thing about many of these martial arts, for one to attain any degree of proficiency they would need much practice and considerable discipline.

And before that came about, anyone intent on inflicting any serious injury upon another; they might've became more level headed, better skilled, and infinitely better disciplined as I mentioned above. Even the old fashioned 'Advanx' hard rubber Billie Clubs we're all issued with, if used unwisely you could well find yourself in the Coroners Court, with both your freedom and career on the line. Potentially, they're quite capable of killing, believe me?

In over 32 years in the job, I've rarely even drawn the thing, from the specially designed and sewn (long) narrow pocket in our uniform trousers. The newer more exposed KB26K Long Baton (26" long) mfg'd. from turned aluminum, and worn fully exposed in the baton ring on your duty belt, was a far superior night stick, to the former Billie Club, and less chance of you doing your job. Moreover the judiciary as a whole, we much happier for police, with the KB26K, than the more sinister and highly concealable Billie Club of yesteryear!

Emperor Julian,

John Howard did not take excess guns but guns of particular types and if one only owned one gun and it fell into the banned categories then it had to be handed in, however at the recent Police Ministers' Conference it was reported that there are over 600,000 illegal weapons in Australia, hence the decision to hold an amnesty.

We are among the most heavily civilian armed nations.

Which goes to prove that more guns means less crime.

Is Mise, I am not aware of any stats that support your argument that more guns in the community equals less crime in Australia.

By your silence I can only assume that your support for the use of machetes as a weapon of "self defense" goes without saying.

o sung wo, My partners nephew Chris is rather adapt at using the Maori Taiaha. I have seen him demonstrate it in a ceremonial capacity and its rather a fearsome weapon in the right hands.

From the movie "Whale Rider"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofybOAqLWZM

Paul,

You said that crime in Australia is falling and as the Greens recently sent up a wail when it was realized that there are more guns in civilian hands than before the Gun Buy Back then if follows that more guns means less crime.

Who counted 600,000 illegal guns?

How were 600,000 illegal guns counted?

Is Mise, guilty of misinformation; "You should know by now that the more guns that there are in civilian hands means less crime,"

Where is your evidence that there are more guns, or indeed it leads to less crime. A nonsense argument. It is as logical as claiming more vehicles on the roads, unlike your gun claim can be verified, has led to less fatalities. In the case of the roads other factors like vehicles safety, better roads, better policing, new laws, speed controls, breathalyzers etc, and despite the fact there are more vehicles on the roads has led to less fatalities. If for a moment we accept the more guns line, could there be other factors which have led to less crime, like better policing, tougher laws, a growing number of materially better off people. Is Mise as usual you are losing the argument, because you rely on nonsense to build your case!

How about those machetes? Are you in favor of such items for "self defense? Don't be squeamish about this, in the name of public safety, head must roll, literally!

Paul,

"The proud claim that Australia may have “solved the gun problem” might only be a temporary illusion. In recent years, arms dealers have imported more guns than ever before. And last year we crossed a symbolic threshold: for the first time in 20 years, Australia’s national arsenal of private guns is larger than it was before the Port Arthur massacre .....From the late 1970s, gun deaths in Australia have trended downwards. The risk of an Australian dying by gunshot remains less than half what it was before Port Arthur. Research shows that murderers did not move to other methods."

From a study done by that darling of the anti-gun crowd, Philip Alpers of Sydney Uni.
I'll give the reference if you need it, but if I go off to get it now I'll have to post this first; having some little computer problems, it's on Google.

So you see, Paul, more guns, less deaths.

o sung wu,

Have a deko at this, mate, and I never claimed to be this good, the torso on the figure target is about 18 x 12 inches!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcDGGZtKbi0

Anyone else that thinks that pistols are not effective should also have a look.

//more guns, less deaths.//

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

Is Mise, your more is less argument is vague and does not provide an explanation as to why the number of gun deaths in Australia has declined since Port Arthur. The gun control measures introduced by the Howard Government were successful. Since 1996 the number of licensed firearm owners has decreased significantly, down by 50%, 6.52 per 100 in 1997 to 3.32 in 2012. Registered guns 1996 3.2 million, 2012 2.75 million. Licensed gun owners declined by 470,000 in the same period, also the number of households with a gun dropped by around two thirds, Households possessing a handgun is well done. Howard also introduced tougher regulations as to who could own a gun, and how guns and ammunition can be stored. These factors are far more significant reasons as to why there are less gun deaths, than your vague assertion that its all due to more guns in society.

And your thoughts on machetes, as a weapon of "self defense"? I said don't be squeamish about it! Where is you answer, you are dodging it.

Is Mise, one day you will win an argument with me, but not today!

Paul,

The article says that gun deaths were decling before 1996, so don't change the goal posts.

Your beloved Greens were prattling on about the increase in firearms ownership, look up Shoebridge if you don't believe the Great Alpers, he of the academic title but no academic qualifications.

We often hear the mantra "More guns, more crime" so why not "More guns, less crime" when there is an increase in gun ownership and a continuing fall in crime?
If crime had increased then you'd be claiming that the guns were to blame, so why cannot the opposite be true?

How's this from The Australian Institute of Criminology?

"The percentage of homicides committed with a firearm continued a declining trend which began in 1969. In 2003, fewer than 16% of homicides involved firearms. The figure was similar in 2002 and 2001, down from a high of 44% in 1968."

John Howard's laws had bugger all to do with it.

I wish someone had've been packing on the Moorooka bus this morning.
It would've been a public service to shoot first and ask questions later and spray this assailants brains all over the place.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-28/driver-dies-after-bus-catches-fire-in-brisbane/7974172

Was it a Muslim?
Is it wrong to assume it might be?
Why do they only feed us snippets of a story?

There will be a big stink over this.
Especially considering there have been over 350 attacks in drivers in the last 6mths.
I didn't know being assaulted was part of the job.
Bus drivers should go on strike.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-30/bus-driver-attacks-prompt-safety-review-union-cashless-tickets/7891668

IS MISE...

You obviously didn't read my brief piece on 'trick shooters', I'm neither impressed by them nor accept many of their exaggerated claims.

When I was 'pugging' at South's Juniors,(with Commissioners permission!) back in the seventies I met all manner of blokes in the preliminaries, all trying to earn a decent purse fighting in 6 & 8 x 3min bouts. Regrettably some had mighty big mouths. I fought and trained out of Tom Lemming's stable (Glebe) and I learnt very much the hard way, a 'flapping' jaw meant a potential KO.

Similarly, these fancy martial artists, both on the street and those attempting to get a chance in the ring, they looked 'pretty' dancing around, and scowling, all the while they talked, talked and more talk, until they were on their face sucking up the bitumen.

I equate these inexperienced people to that of 'trick shooters', great at demonstrating their prowess with a F/A no doubt, and probably thoroughly good blokes - but otherwise just empty vessels. I'm surprised at you as a former infantry soldier, would even seek out, or be taken in by their 'skill set'.

You mentioned a little while back, you went bush with your fantastic Ruger. No.1 in .220cal swift, a very flat shooting calibre with an awfully high MV approaching 3,900fps or even 4,000 fps and managed to bag 5 or 6 foxes, that's the sort of shooting that's impressive I reckon IS MISE!

I've been trained by the FBI and the S & W Academy. At the conclusion of one of the FBI Schools I attended (1986/87). Being the only Aussie, and regarded as somewhat of a curiosity by the other students and Instructors, the PFI took a little more interest in me and my 'quaint' Aussie police force. One of the things he did mention to me, was something along the following lines; '...all this stuff you've learned here really means nothing. It depends on how you use what you've been taught that counts, when confronted with lethal force on the street...'? A truer phase has (probably) never been spoken.

o sung wu,

All very true, except the bit about me being taken in by trick shooters.

All that I said was that pistols should not be taken lightly and to demonstrate this fact I told of putting 6 shots into the torso of a military figure target at 100 yards, I did this with an original Navy Colt. I don't throw the bull.

As regards trick shooting I learnt a bit of that under the tutelage of the great Lionel Bibby

One of my tricks was to balance a penny on the cocked hammer of a Star Model F sport pistol and fire two shots as quickly as possible, the first shot saw the hammer flip the coin and the second shot would hit the penny.
Amazed gasps from the onlookers.
It was purely mechanical, the hammer always flipped the coin the same and provided that the second shot was fast enough the penny was always hit.

The shot at 100 yards in the video is genuine, I know people who have seen him do it; note that he is resting on his left arm, just as Wild Bill is said to have done.

The .36 Navy has the same ballistics as a .38 Special.

Hey o sung wu,
I've got a random question about Police policies.
Why do they always say incidents are not terrorist related?
Are they deliberately lying to us to prevent reprisal attacks?

So far in this bus story, I've read that it was 'a random act'; that there was 'no apparent motive'; that other passengers had to be rescued and suffered minor injuries (so I assume they could've also died in this attack)and that the bomb squad was on the scene.

But still they say this is not a terrorist act.
So a person sets another random person on fire and this is not an act of terror?
What the hell suffices as a terrorist attack?

If I find out this person was a Muslim I'm going to be pretty angry.
And not just at the perpetrator, at police always playing down these things.
Can you shed some light on this?

I'm sick of it.
No Muslims in this country are at risk of being stabbed by other crazy Muslims, but regular Australians are.
No Australians are getting around attacking random Muslims but we cop the abuse for being 'racist and discriminatory' and we're the ones being attacked.

Somethings seriously wrong with people these days to do stuff like this.

So more guns mean less crime does it? What a pity they don't let people carry their guns on to airliners. I'd feel so much safer en route.

Do want gun laws watered down? Go to http://www.australia.gov.au/about-government/contact-government/contact-ministers-members-and-senators
Betta hurry, the gun freaks are busy gaming the political system to open the floodgates

Toni,

"More guns, more deaths"

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

Hi ARMCHAIR CRITIC...

I'm sorry I don't really know precisely, why they say one thing, but mean something altogether different. I can tell you quite categorically, just about all police Commissioners are terrified of the media, as are the remainder of the senior executive command (Assistant Commissioner's and above).

To your specific inquiry; why are some crimes, the author of which are clearly terrorist, but are not openly acknowledged as such, by police in media releases? Probably because they don't wish to show their hand as it were, during the preliminary stages of the investigative process.

It's not that they're especially nervous about appearing live on TV or being heard on Radio. They need to be particularly guarded even cautious, not only for what the say but how they say it, to avoid causing any undue alarm or affront to the listening public. Alternatively a careless variation from the 'approved script' could negatively influence matters currently under investigations. Moreover in instances of some especially brutal homicides, or other fatalities, one needs to be both mindful and cautious not to cause any unnecessary distress or desolation, particularly for the NOK, who've yet to be located by police and appraised of their relatives demise?

The media are especially adroit at teasing out facts from police they interview, therefore they need to be on guard to ensure they don't release data that's germane to an investigation or may compromises that particular inquiry. That is in essence, why these 'word games' occur between police and the media. Hope it helps you ARMCHAIR CRITIC?

//why not "More guns, less crime" when there is an increase in gun ownership and a continuing fall in crime?//

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

If only you'd devoted as much time to your Latin & your logic as your rifle & your gun*.

//I didn't know being assaulted was part of the job.//

You oughta catch the bus more often, AC. It's good for your wallet, good for the planet, and good for your soul. I don't drive so I catch the bus all the time, and I see all the deadbeats, lowlifes and un-sectioned lunatics that regularly frequent public transport. When the light is bad, I talk to the driver rather than strain my eyes reading my book. And yeah, they get heavily abused. I've never witnessed any assaults but the drivers tell me it is a thing and they fear it happening to them.

//Bus drivers should go on strike.//

Yes they should, even though I'll have trouble getting to work. They should demand guards, like they have on every train service. Failing that, they should demand the Transport Command of the police ride the busses instead of the trains - because I only ever see police on the trains, and the trains already have a guard.

o sung wu, I'm interested in your views on the Transport Command and why they all seem to be trainspotters but never on the busses?

*This is my rifle, this is my gun, this is for fighting, this is for fun.

Hey Toni,
Yes I should catch the bus more often; I do sometimes, but not as often as I should.
"I see all the deadbeats, lowlifes and un-sectioned lunatics that regularly frequent public transport."

- The elderly, overweight middle aged men, schoolkids and foulmouthed mums with kids and prams.

It's almost like a social event sometimes.

"They should demand guards, like they have on every train service."

I'll be surprised if they don't do something after this.
I think it would be negligent not to.
I thought maybe they could put in a partition or something so the driver is secure, but I'm not sure it's practical.
Your idea is probably better, though it would cost more.

I think it would be a hard enough job as it is with traffic, people, constant stopping and accepting fares without some hostile passengers making things worse.
I usually thank or acknowledge the bus driver when I get off, and the times I've spoken to them they seem like nice enough people and have some interesting stories.

Toni,

It was your Latin that I nicked!

Regards the bus fire incident:
Well it looks like I spoke too soon, that will teach me.
The bus driver assailant's name was Anthony Donahue and apparently he was a sacked accountant...

http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/10/28/11/27/driver-believed-dead-in-moorooka-bus-fire/?ocid=9newsbfb

Knee jerk reaction is not likely to overcome mental sickness that is apparently the cause of some attacks by humans on fellow humans.

RIP Manmeet Alisher, bus driver.
And all sympathy possible to his family.

I use public transport often in Sydney, Redfern is my local train station, sometimes late at night. My son is a public bus driver, tells me many odd stories. I actually feel safe catching buses and trains. Yes they are a microcosm of the lower end of society, the strange, the crazy and the beautiful.
The only time I can remember real trouble, was some years back, when 3 teenage buys were playing up and drinking on the bus, acting the idiots. The driver said nothing, but when we got to Redfern Station, the police and Transit Officers were waiting, the driver had radioed for help, and all's well that ends well,

Is Mise, taking your time formulating your response about the use of the machete as a weapon of "self defense"?

Paul,

In the right* hands at the right time any edged cutting weapon is an excellent means of self defence.

* or left hands as required.

Now this is long range pistol shooting!!

1,000 yards with a revolver:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ3XwizTqDw

Hey o sung wu,
Thanks for taking the time to explain, I suppose all the things you mentioned make logical sense and that everything is done for a reason.
I made the mistake of jumping to conclusions a little bit with the bus event in Brisbane yesterday.

Hi again ARMCHAIR CRITIC...

It doesn't mean you're wrong ! I've been retired from the job for awhile now, and one thing with the coppers they're always evolving, both with operational matters and procedural planning, including the manner in which they handle media inquiries.

Back to that dreadful crime in Brisbane were the young Bus driver was wantonly set ablaze and died. By all accounts they've taken the perpetrator into custody, and he's 'helping police with their inquiries' - this is a relatively new term, whereas formerly it was usually, 'a man's been taken into custody and is being spoken to or, interviewed by detectives'. "A rose by any other name is still a rose"?

Please don't misunderstand me AC, I'm not trying to make light of this awful crime, I'm merely illustrating variations of 'copper speak' is all?

*R I P* to Mr Manmeet ALISHER's NOK; as you've quite properly have said, JF AUS.

Hi there PAUL1405...

I was stationed at Redfern, and I couldn't agree more, you meet all manner of people, from every nation, and every corner of the world. By and large they're terrific people! Do you recall an indigenous lady 'Mumma Shirl' by chance? A rough, tough, but 'beautiful lady' with a huge heart as big as the N.T.?

IS MISE...

You seem wholly absorbed in this world of violence and savagery to the extent you're immensely keen to arm yourself, in the dubious event you're ever attacked? How sad. To me that's a sorry indictment on society.

O sung wu,

you're getting it wrong again, mate, I'm one of the most peaceable blokes you'd ever meet; but no one treads on my toes.

I seem to have a great asset that helps me to have a peaceful life;
I walked into the Crystal Palace Hotel one day (and it could be a bit of a bloodhouse sometimes, despite the police watering hole on the second floor).
I heard a fellow say to his companion, "Geez, he's a bad looking bastard."
I asked my mate who was waiting for me, with a couple of schooners, who they were talking about, the reply was "You, stupid!".

Here's a 500 yard shot with a .22 rim fire pistol.

Never tried over 200 yards myself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uG-Kiy3AT4

Hi all
I am late to this post due to a dying mother board. I have not read all the posts, but this is a clear wake up call to focus on the real problem that is the level of mental illness in the community. Having more guns or increased police protection is only a band aid that does not fix the problem.

Chris

Hi Is Mise, no,no,no!

That will not do "In the right hands at the right time any edged cutting weapon is an excellent means of self defence."

It's all or nobody. Can't have an elitists band of machete wielding citizens. Why should some have the right and not others? Unacceptable! Next thing you will be saying firearms should be restricted to some elitists private army under your control, the SA (Stormtroopers Australia)

"I'm one of the most peaceable blokes you'd ever meet; but no one treads on my toes." A bloke said words to that effect in Europe in the 1930's.

Hi o sung wu, you could not knock around inner Sydney and not know Mum Shirl, a real Australian hero in my book. If others of us could do just 1% of what she done Australia would be a far better place for both black and white.

I love a friend I've got to know over the years, Aboriginal bloke, old now. Travels regular on the bus and train down to the quay to play the clapsticks or guitar with the bros (nephews) as they dress up and do a corroboree for the tourists. They get a quid all the same. Does it about four times a week. Got told off by a young girl for calling my indigenous brother an old bastard, said "where you going you old bastard" she took offence not at the word, but at the fact I directed it towards a person of aboriginality, he told her I was a bigger bastard than him, but all's well that ends well.

IS MISE...

You're too good for me my friend, with all these claims of what a fearful individual you are. You must surely strike fear into the hearts of many of Sydney's 'trembling' underworld figures, as well as the street hoodlum's who prey upon our citizenry, all by the intimidation occasioned by your very appearance?

For this reason one can only speculate as to why it is, you want a weapon to defend yourself? When your presence alone imparts such menace and malevolence, to scare off even the most violent of thugs?

o sung wu,

I don't need a weapon and if you'd read my posts I've said so, my Government taught me enough dirty tricks to last a lifetime; one of my instructors became RSM of the Commandos in the late 1950s and another became CO of the SAS.

Getting six on target at 100 yards with an 1851 Navy Colt seems to have got up your nose.

//And your thoughts on machetes, as a weapon of "self defense"?//

While you're contemplating machetes, what about flamethrowers? I mean obviously if everybody should be entitled to carry the weapon of their choice they should be entitled to carry a flamethrower.

But should they be allowed to use them during total fire bans? Should incinerating a man (in self-defence, of course) be considered an acceptable excuse for starting a fire during a total fire ban because everybody has the right to self defence, or is the risk of bushfire just too great? Should people stick to a chainsaw (ice hockey goalkeeper's mask optional) during bushfire season?

Paul,

Interesting that you mention Mum Shirl, I met her a number of times when I'd go with Declan Affley, when he played the Uillean Pipes for kids in Redfern. Lot of adults used to turn up as well; Declan was a wizard on the concert pipes.

Sorry, Toni

I can't agree, the results of the use of the flamethrower would be too horrific for small children to gaze upon. I would much prefer them to witness the neat and tidy carnage of a machete attack on an evil doer by a righteous citizen, severed limbs, heads, blood and guts and all, far more acceptable. We don't want the little ones to be upset by horror and possibly having nightmares, from the results of a BBQ gone wrong, now do we. Your bushfire concern is superseded by the overriding right to self defend.

Both Toni and Paul seem to be unaware that flame throwers are freely available to the general public along with portable igniters.

The highly illegal ".....devices capable of discharging a hurtful, irritant, liquid or gas" are also freely available and virtually no one cares a hoot.

Hi there Paul1405...

I really don't like boasting my friend but I'd like to share with you my little secret? For this reason I should, in the interest of truth and clarity admit to you and anybody else, 'who cares' that I'm required by law, to have both my hands 'registered' at the local Post Office, the nearest of which I reside, as deadly weapons !

One of the strictest and most onerous condition imposed upon me was; during periods of darkness (night-time) and when off duty, I was required to have both hands deeply ensconced in my pockets. Lest their exposure might cause serious alarm and affront to the dear folk of Sydney, by having them seen!

My only real regret with that requirement, in summer months when stiflingly hot, I had to walk around, often with my family and friends, with both hands plunged deeply into my pockets. Causing many people to think I was crazy, but much worse Paul some thought I was engaging in something altogether quite lewd and salacious, which was both very embarrassing and vulgar for a man of my age! I guess it's well I wasn't tutored in French Savate, where in hell would I put my 'deadly' feet?

Upon reaching 70 years, the requirement was relaxed, as it had been determined by those in government who really know everything, after a bloke reaches 70, he probably couldn't knock Grandpa off is piss pot! Thus the fair City of Sydney was finally safe.

IS MISE...

Nothing you've said or claimed herein has 'got up my nose'. I've mentioned previously, bragging or exaggerating simply doesn't do it for me, for this reason I'm disappointed. However, as I stated earlier I've too much respect for 3RAR and the military small arms reconditioning, repair and/or modification branch at St Mary's or Kingswood (I don't recall it's official nomenclature) to engage in any sort of 'pissing competition' with you. Therefore I'll defer to anything you wish to claim, that said I am nevertheless disappointed.

o sung wu,

I wasn't bragging or exaggerating, I used the 36 Navy shooting as an example for those who had posted previously about the poor accuracy of pistols.
I did it and could do the same today with my replica .44 1858 Remington cap & ball revolver.

I did retain my marksman's badge using a pistol in a rifle shoot, the maximum range that year was 400 yards.

Only a few years ago, at Tamworth, I was shooting in a military rifle match and in the "Mad Minute", I don't remember how many shots I got off but two young blokes, observing me, were heard to say "Look at the old bloke, he had three empties in the air at once".
For those paranoid about rapidity of fire I was using a standard .303 SMLE of 1917 vintage..

Hi o sung wu and Is Mise,

The biggest trouble makers I see on a Friday and Saturday night are mostly young blokes, and some young girls filled with a skin full of Dutch courage. At times they can get out of hand, right out of hand, and in the worse of worse cases serious assaults can and do take place, mostly between the young people themselves. To combat this stupidity, a few things have been done, 'pub' security has been beefed up, lock out laws have been introduced, more on the ground uniformed police patrols late at night in 'hot' spots. These people are not criminals as such, and the availability and use of guns would make a bad situation a whole lot worse. When needed we must rely on the police to deal with these situations. The best way to avoid trouble is for both private and police security to be pro active in dealing with things before real trouble can develop.
I'm not a wowser by any means, I like a drink myself, but over indulgence of alcohol is the root cause of much of the anti social behavior. A few years back I went on a night out with the young blokes from work, mostly in their 20's, according to them their drinking exploited were "legendary". Not so, I had as much as them but ended up organizing cabs to get some of them home, one was as sick as a dog, and up chucked in the street. What a bloody night, not for me, but I recall doing the same stupid things when I was young. As teenagers and young bucks we had some wild drunken parties. Recall a stupid drinking game called "sevens" counting in a circle, but skipping every number with 7 in it, or adds up to seven 7, 16, 17 25, 27 etc, otherwise scull a bottle of beer, when your drunk its hard not to say 16 or 27!

Then PM Howard jumped on the political bandwagon and outlawed guns among most of Australia's law abiding and decent citizens.

Then came the mad idiot that caused mayhem and death at Port Arthur.

That idiot was a useful idiot because it was someone at the top of a Australian Politics that planned and executed the events at Pt Aurthur

Howard had the building knocked down to destroy any exculpatory evidence.

Funny how this same technique was employed on 911 at the Pentagon when the entire lawn surrounding the contact area was plastered over with 200mm of blue metal within 2 weeks.

Take guns off people> yea no worries, but take guns off government first.

Referundemdrivensocienty

Nothing like a good ole conspiracy theory, but if you're going to push one it helps to get the facts straight, Port Arthur happened before Howard introduced his draconian laws, not after.

I think the Port Arthur massacre was what prompted Howard to introducethe present gun law, stupid law that leaves criminals with guns and good people without guns.

Men who love the guns love killing. The Australia Prime minister Howard did great thing to take away lots of guns from the men who like killing.

Misanthrope,

Are you saying defence force personel like killing or do they have guns to defend people like you?

What do we say? Arm everyone because criminals have weapons and we the civil public declare war on criminals, if innocent people get killed that is called collateral damage. What insanity!

Guns are not needed in the towns and cities to arm citizens, except for controlled sport shooting, and in the country to control feral animals.

Josephus,

What about home invasion?

Is the home owner to assume that the invader does not mean the occupants any harm?

In my book anyone unlawfully kicking in the front door intends to kill me or mine.

"Arm everyone" is nonsense talk.
Not everyone would want a gun.
Go back to pre Howard days.
Guns were not a problem.
The Port Arthur idiot could have done similar wirh a car into a crowd or with a bomb somewhere.

If an armed criminal is in your street and police are busy elsewhere, and no household has a gun, then the gunman can do whatever.

Decent citizens have a right to self defence and to defend others if need arises.

No doubt there are anti gun people who drink and drive and kill people.
Should alcohol or cars be banned too?

JF Australia I am sorry, I not refer to Army they help protect this beautiful country Australia with the guns. I say to that man Is mise he love the gun totally he is big story teller about how great he is about the guns. Me I am 81 almost 82 from Albania and I be in the Albanian militia for 11 years with guns. I cry at all the death and horible things I see against God, in the militia and the dead and the loss to every family near my street where I live. Policeman come to house and take people if they complain and family not see their family ever again. Guns cause much pain and so much death and crying I know I see it for 11 years no more guns, you must believe me please, keep guns away from man like Is mise he love the gun, and me I hate the gun many people cry and cry and cry because of the guns I see many killed by the gun and God will punish us a lot.

misanthrope,

More Albanians have died by the sword than by the gun, I have a great interest in swords as well, having studied fencing under the late, great Charles Stanmore of Sydney.

Under which regime were you in the militia?

For your information anything that I have claimed to be able to do I am willing to demonstrate and there are any amount of people around who are better shots than I am.

"In my book anyone unlawfully kicking in the front door intends to kill me or mine."
Could be coppers conducting a drug raid (wrong house of course) at what point would you determine if the raid was lawful or unlawful?

Good story about a bloke who shot a bandit in the bum with his bow and arrow. The police are now looking for someone who can't sit down. They may even charge the would be Robin Hood.

Is Mise has lived with guns, so I wonder how many criminals have broken previously down his door that he has shot? Does that indicate that he has offended some criminal that want to kill him. If you play with criminals you might offend some.

His attitude is social paranoia.

If an unexpected organized criminal is breaking down his door by the time he unlocks his gun cabinet and loads the cartridge he is already dead. His offending has been done prior to this and could have happened while walking in the street. If Is Mise is carrying a loaded gun in the street he himself is a criminal.

Josephus,

Is the home owner to assume that the invader does not mean the occupants any harm?
What's your thoughts on this?

Paul,

The absence of flashing lights in the street and the cries of "POLICE! POLICE! may be a useful indication.

Do you believe in Home Invaders' Rights?"

Why should the victim of the invasion have to determine the exact intent of the invader, surely the invader signaled intent when unlawfully entering.

IS MISE...

All your many accomplishments does make me pause a moment or two, wondering whether or not you're in reality Methuselah incarnate? Fencing, Indian Stick fighter, expert shot with all manner of small arms, street fighter etc. ? When all the while I see your hitherto iron clad plausibility diminishing in the distance?

Is Mise,
How many times have you been broken into? Be honest!

Many house break in are done by drunks entering the wrong house assuming the wife has locked the doors. So you would shoot a disoriented drunk?

Josephus,

I've never been broken in to, probably because I would appear to offer small pickings,although a house that I owned in Hill End was broken into and a number of items stolen by a person known but subsequently found not guilty.

Getting drunk is the responsibility of the person affected by the grog, not the home owner.

o sung wu,

You are starting to hang things on me that I have never claimed, I'm not an expert at Indian Stick Fighting but I can hold my own, I never claimed anything as a street fighter, only related an experience, it was nothing special and as trained by the real experts in 3RAR, I could have killed him before he knew it.
Of course I'm expert with all types of firearms, they were my everyday job both as a soldier and as a Defence Dept Armourer.

The truth about fencing was that it is a sport requiring fitness and the girls that attended Charles Stanmore's were an exceptionally fit lot, (beautiful too!) but to mix with them required one to attain a certain proficiency with the blades.
I started my interest in sword fighting in 3RAR as we were issued with swords and some of the Officers encouraged proficiency with all weapons, just in case.

o sung wu,

Over on the thread about the Adler I make the claim that I can fire 7 shots out of a muzzle loading gun quicker than anyone can fire 7 shots from an Adler lever action shotgun; observations?

misanthrope,

It’s good to see you posting here on this site.

In 1970 while diving the Mediterranean coast I had to get past the coast of Albania by driving from Dubrovnic up over the mountains to Peche, at every moment being a bit worried about taking a wrong turn across the border into Albania. I remember the mountain people extending one hand upturned as they tapped it with the other hand seeking a few dollars.
It was common knowledge among travellers that Albania had border guards with machine guns to stop just about all entry and exit.
Of course you can see right here that the presence of guns can keep people away.

I am sorry to hear you have had to witness the death and abuse you refer to but that shows the difference between Albania and Australia.

I think you will agree that economic and social hardship In Albania compared to prosperity and peace in Australia puts people in a very different state of mind.
I think it was military dictatorship in Albania at the time, democracy here.
In Aus it’s generally possible to earn $100 a day take home pay but in Albania it’s not usually possible.
People with a job don’t want to cause trouble, they prefer to keep their job and income and so generally they stay peaceful.

While managing a gulf country station in the NT I often thought of possibility of coming across a gang of illegal refugees or smugglers walking inland from the coast, and I always carried a rifle in the Toyota just in case, and in case a cranky wild bull decided to not leave me alone.

Gun law in Australia is needed but it should allow people of good character to keep a gun as guns were allowed to be kept previously, pre PM Howard.
We have a right to self defence.
And just sight of a gun can prevent a killing.
That’s what I think anyway.

I and my family are lucky peoples for being allowed to come to this beaurful lovely place Australie! A great honor for us to be allowed to come here and work and live in peaceful place like Sydney, where there is peace and safety for us always not even policeman come into our house to get us for this or that. Not like they did in Elbasan lots of times no asking, just walk in the door without asking to do so. Sometimes while in Durres in the sea coast of Adriatic, we stay for the holiday with our friends and they policeman can walk into house and no asking to anyway.

JF Aus, policeman have many guns and shoot them all the time plus can hit you if you say things about them or the government leaders to. Thank you sir JF Aus you are a very very nice person but the guns are very very very bad, please understand me and believe me please about the guns are bad, and the policeman bad.

misanthrope,
Bad there but not here.

misanthrope,

Australia is a great place to live and it is men with guns that we have to thank for it.

Tell me, how did the police in Albania travel around?

Did thy have cars?

Don't you think that the cars are to blame also?

Why din't the people use their own guns to resist the evil police?

To my knowledge from 1970, Albania did not have guns or police as we know it, or many cars. It may still be the same.

Of course there may be a hidden illegal gun or two but most Albanian's could not afford a gun let alone ammunition.

Albania was policed by the military that was controlled by dictatorship.
Poverty was long term and dissent was strictly controlled by the military.

Albania is a tiny country that has been locked away from the rest of the world for a long time.

I think the big difference is that Australians have democracy and employment and social security welfare that keeps dissent to a minimum.
No sensible person in Australia wants to become a rebel (criminal) and lose their job or welfare and be put in jail.

In Monrovia alongside the border of Albania the people either walk of have donkeys pulling carts on an old motor car axle and tyres, and I think it would be the same in Albania or worse. e.g. Perhaps more wooden wheels.

Don't get me wrong, in Monrovia I know the people are really nice but many are desperate and I think it would be the same in Albania.
There is virtually no properly paid work or work that is paid for at all.
In Albania the people worked for the state, it was strict communism compared to democracy. Maybe still do.

The point I am trying to make is, I agree it's not good to have guns generally in a nation of poverty stricken desperate people.

People without guns is good for dictators.

Over on the thread about the Adler I make the claim that I can fire 7 shots out of a muzzle loading gun quicker than anyone can fire 7 shots from an Adler lever action shotgun.

Isn't anyone going to say that I'm boasting?

Furthermore I'm willing to put money on being able to do as I claim,
say $10,000 as an opening bet, but much less for those that can't afford that much.

Is Mise

I think you could do as you say by loading seven shots together and firing with one charge.

Is Mise, being a gun expert as you are. A question; how many people could you mow down in 30 seconds with the latest and greatest automatic machine gun? I think its no more than 200, you may disagree.

JF aUS,

No, seven different shots, that is seven charges of powder and shot.

Paul,

I haven't got the faintest idea, my mind doesn't work along those lines, but if it turns you on.

Ref the Adler have you got $10,000 to wager?
If not a dollar will do.

Is Mise,

I suggest load one powder charge, 7 round lead shot and one fuse or detonator. Then shoot off seven shot simultaneously

I think there has to be a similar catch to what you are indicating about speed in muzzle loading.

JF Aus,

No, seven separate shots, seven separate charges, wads etc.

If what you say is possible it takes this gun debate back a long way.
How many cowardly mass shootongs were there back then?

However I think it impossible for you to beat a lever action.

JF Aus,

You were on the right track; I would have no trouble, nor would anyone else, with Samuel Nock's 7 barrel volley gun, in which one pull of the trigger fires the 7 barrels more or less instantaneously ; late 1700s.
http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/Lot/a-rare-32-bore-second-model-naval-seven-barrelled-5509748-details.aspx

Thought that I might buy a couple!!

Is Mise

Good idea but you will have to first get approval from Paul.
He might get quite a kick from some target practice!

No problem, when Is Mise is out on the trail, and a band of renegade engines are on the war path, and attack his wagon train, the 7 shooter Homer Simpson blunderbuss is going to come in mighty handy. Is Mise go ahead and order one from your Sears and Roebuck catalog.

There are times when decent oeople need to defend themselves or their nation against attack by bullies, cowards, rapists and robbers.

Even single shot barrels are banned under present overly restrictive gun law in Australia.

Do goverment leaders ever think about making economies boom to generate prosperity and peace instead of hopelessness?

Meanwhile we have a right to self defence. Surely.

JF Aus,

Not all Australians are unprotected, senior politicians have bodyguards and under their jackets/coats are the means of protection.

Even anti-gun Howard's minders were armed with pistols, and John Winston never complained.

Do as I say, not as I do!!

I am not even allowed to freely have an underwater bangstick to get rid of a nervous hungry and frenzied shark while making film and exploring underwater.
According to present Australian gun law I am not allowed to defend myself, not even against being mauled to death.

Let yourself get eaten. How absurd.

"I am not even allowed to freely have an underwater bangstick to get rid of a nervous hungry and frenzied shark while making film and exploring underwater."

JF Aus, and his "bangstick" maybe you should keep your nose out of the sharks environment, do you have to poke it into everything?

Come Is Mise; I would have though my question would have been right up your ally, given you are a gunnie from way back.

A question; how many people could you mow down in 30 seconds with the latest and greatest automatic machine gun? I think its no more than 200, you may disagree.

"I haven't got the faintest idea, my mind doesn't work along those lines" Of course it does, you are always prattling on about guns and how many shots a second you can get off. If its not for the purpose of killing what is all that talk about?

Paul,

The full quote is, "I haven't got the faintest idea, my mind doesn't work along those lines, but if it turns you on."

Why cut the last bit off?

As regards my speed with firearms, I'm by no means as fast as many of my peers, ans I'm slowing down with age but I've mentioned it to shew just how stupid is the anti-gun faction in their portrayal of the Adler lever action shotgun as being some super fast 'weapon of mass destruction'.
The truth is it's a bit of mass produced Turkish junk that would never have sold well had it not been for the free advertizing provided by Gun Control Australia and the Greens and easily duped politicians.
The Adler and other lever action shotguns are now being offered by gun stores all across the country, just do a Google.

Is Mise, I think the last bit is cut off because just about any comment turns Paul on, into his unreasonably critical state of mind or attitude.

At least, Paul1405, I don't poke my nose into just about every subject raised on this site.

Bangstick was a brand name for a 2 inch long magnum cal barrel fitted on a a one metre long aluminium tube with a rubber sling.
Just having that self defence while working underwater helped keep heart beat down, instead of it racing and sharks sensing the fear like a savage dog can.

Some people wear safety helmets at work.
My work these days includes whether or not there is enough seafood food even for sharks.

Some people cannot comprehend that humans have made sharks more hungry and also less able to see properly in the now algae riddled green water.

Some people don't want to see why other people may sometimes need defence. Some people don't want to see anything except their own uninformed views.

"Why cut the last bit off?" Was not relevant to the question.

At least, Paul1405, I don't poke my nose into just about every subject raised on this site. Judging by your shark post we should be thankful for small mercies.

With time you may become an adequate backstop for Is Mise, since the apparent departure from the forum of his faithful sidekick onthebeach. But like a bad penny he may turn up again.

Paul,

To save you asking the question again, I guess that if a machine gun fires 1,000 rounds a minute then it could, in theory, hit 1,000 people,or more, in a minute, however if the targets were Greens MPs who don't lie then it couldn't hit any

Is Mise,

You should be stoked, your man from the Shooters, Hooters, Farmers, Pizza Eaters Party has a chance of knocking off The Country hick in the Orange by-election, but you will do it with Labor Party preferences. Troy Grant the head of the hicks fell on his sward yesterday.

Baird is flabbergasted!

Did you know in WWI a machine gun bullet often killed two or three or even more men. Killed in a cross fire pattern. Shocking!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApmMbiF0nVs

From the youtube, an oldie but a real nasty!

I cannot understand why an obviously intelligent human being would spend their time inventing such a monstrous machine.
p/s The Germans had the same gun invented by Maxim.

Vickers and Browning WWI machine guns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfQwjyhQSbc

Paul,

Thanks for those links, brought back some old memories!

The Brits had the Maxim as well, the Vickers is an improved Maxim, virtually the Maxim turned upside down to overcome some operating problems.

The invention of machine guns saved lives.

I see the Greens didn't do so well; portent of things to come?

Not sure what you are saying there Is Mise "The invention of machine guns saved lives." Is that except for the ones who got in the road. Or is it like saying taking arsenic prevents deaths from strychnine. As Pauline Hanson would say "Please explain!"

Orange is not fertile ground for The Greens at this time, having much more success in an alliance with farmers to the north affected by CSG mining. Maybe Orange needs me back.

p/s I was born in Orange. (Orange Base Hospital) My maternal grandfather was a man of the land, sheep farmer near Orange, part time gold miner, Voted for, and was a member of the Country Party.

Paul,

There are more and better (?) machine guns these days but the infantry etc., have become more adept at avoiding them and other fire from guns, the changes in tactics were inspired, in great part, by the existence of the machine gun.
In WWII the Australians fighting the Japanese were helped very
much by having reliable machine guns, saved Australian lives.

I know Orange well, having lived in the Bathurst district for some years.
A mate and I once walked from Mullion Creek to Hill End, one Easter to publicize the Easter Events at Hill End (must look it up on the old newspaper site, as I don't have any of the cuttings now). We carried dried vegetables/salt/sugar and tea and our muzzle loading shotguns and shot rabbits for a bit of meat.
Took us two days.

Paul, what is your judgement of my "shark post"? Your response confounds me.

I think I am alive today because I was allowed to carry a weapon for self defence.
Just having that defence capability gave me confidence.

Sharks can hear or sense heart rate increase associated with panic.
Having a bangstick or power head gives confidence that prevents panic and stirring sharks into frenzy.

Being torn apart by a shark or a crocodile or an insane person can have the same result. Dead.

These days in the Pacific islands I am often asked to go diving with a torch at night to spear fish, but I decline because of salt water crocodiles and having no defence.

Different weapons suit different tasks.

Anyway, what is your relevant judgement, Paul?

Hi Is Mise,

I suppose its not that far from Mullion Creek to Hill End, maybe 20 miles overland, rough country, further by road.
Interesting about rabbits, I like wild rabbit myself, when they were in plague proportions us kids could set 40 traps and catch about 35 rabbits, no trouble. Rabbit pelts fetched a shilling each, no bad money in the 1960's.
Gold panning is a lot of fun, as is catching yabbies with meat on a cotton line, picked blackberries by the bucket, another plague! Kids today don't know what they are missing out on. Now brown snakes that is another john dory, had the occasional run in with those things, do well to avoid them, aggressive fellas, not like black snakes.

Hi JF Aus,

You are confounded? Sharks, my attitude is pretty much, they live their life, we live ours. We don't harm them, they don't harm us. Often people who are attacked by sharks, will take the attitude of not blaming the shark. If man is going to go around in the sharks environment unintentionally acting like a seal he may become the sharks dinner. People attacked by crocks, usually don't heed warnings, go into the water at the wrong place at the wrong time, sometimes involves alcohol. One must be responsible for their own actions.
I see mosquitoes as being far more dangerous than both sharks and crocodiles.

Paul,

Yes, and now I am further confounded by you comparing mosquito's to shark attack.
It is bewildering to me that anyone can liken a mosquito bite and/or disease to a shark attack and being torn apart while the person is alive.

It may even be possible for a victim to see a shark swimming off with a leg, before the victim then dies from shock of loss of blood. I had a friend who had a leg taken, his girlfriend saw the sharks swimming away with his leg.

We all live our lives, animals also.
And it’s also our domain in the ocean.
Should we compare a road accident on a city street. Should we be there? Is that roadway the domain of indigenous people?

Should we not fly in aircraft because the sky is the domain of birds?

I agree people should be responsible for their own action, for example I used to take responsibility by taking a power head with me for self defence while exploring underwater.
I used to carry a weapon for self defence but now I understand that is breaking the law. How absurd.

Should everyone stay out of the water?

You Paul, have insight from other threads here on OLO that underwater exploration has led me to finding links between heat in algae and change in regional weather and climate.
That change may even mean more mosquito's in some regions. lol.

Being in the shark's so called 'domain' has led to evidence revealing collapse of world seafood sustainability.

Humans and sharks need food.
Sharks are not immune to starvation and therein is evidence of need for law to allow self defence, even if underwater.

In any case more people die from car accidents and plane crashes than from cowards using guns to kill innocent people.

I am also confounded by media making so much news from death of jst 4 people on a water slide (RIP those good people), while the same news editors ignore thousands of people dying due to under-nutrition on islands off Australia's shores because of fish devastation.

Paul,

Great times! I still enjoy a feed of yabbies, the only crustacean that I eat, for some reason I don't like any of the others except tiny prawns as used in fried rice.

We did a bit more than 20 miles, we walked from Mullion Creek Rly Station down to the Ophir then a short way down stream then cut across country to the Macquarie River, as the river was up a bit we had to hit one of the long calm reaches to be able to swim across.
Took about 150 yards to get across because of the strong flow, then we walked to the Turon crossing on the Bridle Track then up the mountain to Hill End.

That was in the early 1960s, we were fit!!

JF Aus, mosquitoes account for somewhere between 600,000 and 1,000,000 human deaths per year, with around 200 million seriously affected by their bite. Shark attacks are a handful by comparison. Mosquitoes are found in the same environment as man, whereas sharks are in an alien environment to humans. People choose to enter the sharks environment for mostly recreational purposes, surfing, diving etc, and should know the risk. The remedy for shark attack is simple, choose not to enter the sharks environment unless, you are willing to run the risk of attack, can't say the same for mosquitoes.

Paul,

The Port Arthur massacre was a rare event and even less rare than shark attacks.

What is the use of comparing worldwide mosquito data?
Why not count and compare vehicle fatalities?
Numbers numbers and more numbers.

Some expert ocean people think there are many more deaths from sharks that are known, Harold Holt for example, and thousands of missing people not accounted for and who were swimmers.

Dead is dead no matter which way, and we all have a right to defend ourselves against injury or death.

".... and we all have a right to defend ourselves against injury or death."

Not in the world of the Greens, the Greens believe that all animals have he right to defend themselves, except the human animal.

//Not in the world of the Greens, the Greens believe that all animals have he right to defend themselves//

They want to give them guns? How's that supposed to work? Look, it's a simple question of weight ratios: a five ounce bird can't carry a one-pound firearm. Now, maybe an African swallow could manage it, but of course they're non-migratory and so not subject to the policies of the Australian Greens.

Is Mise, A near riot in the NSW parliament yesterday when X deputy dog of the Nationals, Adrian Pickhisnose, got upset with the Karl Marx mob opposite because their man Elmer Fudd gave his preferences to your man from the Shooters and Hooters Yosemite Sam in the Orange by-election. Good old Adrian went balistic, goosestepping around the chamber pretending to shoot the Karl Marx mob with his finger gun!
Maybe he need not have bothered, like a greyhound on a rabbit The Nationals have shot 67 clear in the latest counting.

ps How many shots in 30 seconds can you get off with a finger gun? How often do you have to reload?

pps At the last State and Federal elections the Coalition parties preferenced The Shooter and Hooters over Labor. Did Pickhisnose want to shoot the Coalition then, No!
He also went on about his family want to go on hols to Port Arthur and AR-15 Assault rifles, Let hope Pickhisnose never gets his hands on one of those AR-15's, it might replace his finger gun!

It's absurd talking about giving people guns, nobody is saying that guns will be given. Who is saying, 'give everybody guns'?

A limited number of people would like to have target shooting as a hobby.
Some elderly people would like to have a gun handy on dark winter nights.
Elderly couples appreciate peace of mind that can result result in them knowing they have protection if they need it.
All such people would like their desired firearm on hand like was legal previously, without trendy licensing laws to keep them locked up and no longer a pleasurable hobby.

The Greens could put up their focus and aims and policy on firearms, on this OLO website.

I think we all have a right to review all evidence that has caused our protection ability and options to be taken away.

JF Aus,

The NSW Greens' policy is available on their web site, some of it is so funny that it must be much of the inspiration for Paul's humour!!

Of course Is Mise you would find it funny that The Greens do not agree with your policy of arming children, or setting up citizens militia. We don't even agree with you policy of shoot first and ask no questions. Hilarious!
Is the bloke in the following story a member of The Shooters and Hooters Party?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-29/man-charged-over-major-illegal-weapons-haul-in-sw-sydney/5124744

I doubt it, Paul; still good to see that "Little Johnie's" gun laws are working so well and that Australia is a safer place.

How's the shootings going down there in the Big Smoke, anymore gangland notables knocked off overnight?

Is Mise, I have to report "All is quite on the Western Front."
Why do you doubt that bloke would not be a member of The Shooters and Hooters Party? Looks the ideal type to me. If you are the parties Recruitment Officer you should sign him up right away. he looks like future party leadership material to me.
You should be celebrating, your man Genghis Khan is going to get up in Orange, although the Nationals have been granted a recount on Monday. you might give him a 21 gun salute. Poor old Troy Grant got the firing squad.
You didn't answer my questions.

John Howard's Port Arthur knee jerk reaction gun law has not stopped illegal import of guns for criminals

Decent law abiding adult Australian citizens should be able to have their rifle or shotgun without restriction, for sport or defence if required.

Armed criminals and disarmed law abiding citizens, how stupid is that.

I answered your question Paul, or do you have other questions; perhaps you'd like to ask why we have some extremely silly gun laws?

Is Mise, which particular silly gun law don't you agree with. Is it that sill law that says you can't go around blowing peoples heads off! Now I can understand how you would think that is a silly law, given you feel fully justified to do so whenever the fancy takes.
Maybe the new member for Orange, Genghis Khan, could make it his business to get that silly law repealed. While he's at it maybe he can get guns back into the school playgrounds, where they belong, under the gunnies policy of children should be armed. Agree?

My questions about finger guns! Where are the answers! Adrian Pickhisnose wants answers.

How about a comment on the Shooters and Hooters getting preferences from the Karl Marx Party. Have you all turned pinko? Should I now refer to you as Comrade Boris?

Paul,

Silly law 1.

A multi shot pump action .22 rim fire rifle is Category A (lowest category) and can fire 10 high velocity rounds in as many seconds, yet a .22 muzzle loading rifle that can fire, at most, 2 shots in one minute (and the loader would have to be real fast) is in the more restrictive Cat B.

Make sense?

is Mise, it don't matter if its category A,B or C, You want guns freely available to all, You said that yourself for so called self defense. You just want category F, F for FREE!

Greens thinking seems to be the problem. Greens party thinking together with in/action does not address reality because they focus on party political agenda, not on what is sensible.

I know first hand that Greens policy is not addressing devastation of Australian east coast western Pacific Ocean ecosystem that is linked to undernutrition and disease and death among seafood dependent birds and whales and island people, the latter involving increase in maternal mortality and NCD and worsening unrest and violence.
So much for humanity and prosperity and peace from green policy.

Is there any difference between death of thousands of black people due to protein deficiency malnutrition compared to death of 30 or 40 white people killed by a gun?

John Howard chose aquaculture policy instead of ocean management policy. And he chose gun policy instead of policy for humanity.

The Greens too are saying nothing about government dumped sewage nutrient overload pollution that flows north in sediment dispersal current energy including into GBR waters killing vast areas of coral and the SW Pacific Ocean food-web ecosystem/s.

I endeavoured to inform the Greens Party by commenting on their blog about nutrient pollution transportation north but when I persisted to get answers I was blocked from further posting.
In other words I am being gagged by the Greens Party.

The Greens have said nothing to my knowledge about the more northerly port excavation and nutrient pollution at Gladstone and the more northerly devastation of coral on the northern GBR.

It seems the Greens are pandering to government agenda including dumping of unmanaged sewage nutrient pollution into coastal ecosystem currents.

So why waste time looking at Green Party gun policy as Is Mise suggests?

In Australia, who has said anything about "guns freely available to all'?

Who knows how long it might be before ISIS 'refugees' gang up in Australia and take what they want.
It's not just island people who now have food shortage problems.

Rifles and shotguns should be available to people of age and good character who want them, including for self defence if there is relevant proof.

Paul,

Why do the Greens think tat a First Fleet musket should be in a higher category than a modern double barrel shotgun that can be fired faster than the dreaded Adler (dreaded by the Greens, that is).

//You just want category F, F for FREE!//

The English can take our lives... but they can never take our FREEDOM!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofkd3pFy3dY

And nae a shotgun among the lads, despite all the other glaring anachronisms (kilts too early, woad way too late, and as for the mullet...).

Maybe you should just be happy with a pointy stick, Is Mise.

Thanks Toni for your contribution, it certainly fits the stupidity bit.

Philip Donato has TRUMPED* the Nationals in Orange and a couple of Nationals crossed the floor in the Senate in a vote on the Adler.

* Sorry, couldn't resist!!

//Thanks Toni for your contribution, it certainly fits the stupidity bit.//

Which part of my post do you dispute?

The bit about the lack of shotguns amongst the Scottish forces?

Was it my list of anachronisms? Scotsmen didn't wear kilts in the 13th century... the movie was way too early. They didn't wear woad in the 13th century... at best, the movie was about 1000 years too late. At worst, they painted Mel in clown make-up for no good reason.

And as for the mullet... well, that was invented in the latter part of the 20th century. It's definitely not right, but it was Mel's signature look and it had served him well before. And thus, Sir William Wallace wound up with the world's worst haircut except for the rat's tail, and the make-up department saved some money by letting an enthusiastic 6-year old have a go at face-painting.

And since all the whining in the world won't make mean old Mr. Government give you the toys you think need but really only want, maybe you should should just stop sooking and console yourself with a pointed stick. Life's tough, princess.

One day there might be government that respects the people and provides what sensible people like or need.
Trump in the US may lead the way.

Toni,

What I want is Uniform National Gun Laws, the which we do not have; after twenty years of the Government and others kidding that we do.

I want laws based on evidence not emotion,

I want laws that are well thought out and not, as some seem to be based on either ill will or stupidity.

Not much of an ask!!

<<Why do the Greens think tat a First Fleet musket should be in a higher category than a modern double barrel shotgun that can be fired faster than the dreaded Adler (dreaded by the Greens, that is).>>

Evidence please comrade. (since your mob got into bed with the Labor pinko's in Orange I'm calling you comrade)

We shall see if your man can consolidate the seat, or will he be a half term wonder, will we see Orange flow back to The Nationals at the next general election. seats can always be won at by-elections but lost at general elections.
The problem is he won with preferences from the opposition, not the government, therefore all the government has to do from here on in is "dry him up" ie make him a lame duck type member who gets nothing done for the locals. then the seat will flow back to Nats (if they are not still on the nose) at the next general election.

Paul,

The Greens support the status quo as regards the various categories of firearms licensing,
the modern high powered, double barrel, fast firing shotgun (faster than the dreaded Adler) is in Cat A whereas the First Fleet musket is in the higher and more restricted Cat B.

Does that make sense?

No, it does not make sense.

Now all of the States and Territories require that firearms be stored in secure locked receptacles, and that's good law.
It protects against theft and misuse by unlicensed people.

One State however requires that bolts be removed from bolt action firearms and all others be left with the beach open; the bolts are to be stored with their firearms in the same storage receptacle.

Is the point of that stupidity or just plain old nastiness?

It's all stupid.
Do kitchen knives and cleavers and garden axes get locked away too?

Alcohol and cars kill hundreds of thousands more than private firearms?

What has been removed is our right to security and self defence if required.

No, we still have the right to security and self defence, what has been taken is the means, the ability, and that by a coward and his fellow travellers who are afforded protection by the State.

How can we have rights to security and self defence if we have no means to uphold those rights?

Is Mise. I have checked the comprehensive and sensible Greens NSW policy on Firearms, and nowhere does that policy support the "status quo" or make reference to the category of gun that, that "First Fleet musket" you are banging on about falls into. Like your gal Pauline would say "Please explain!"

I read the drivel about meat cleavers and axes and its the gunnies smoke screen they throw up from time to time to justify firearms. Interesting about the axe, some 20 years back a bloke I worked with was stopped on a train home, because he was carrying an axe, hr had brought to work to have sharpened, fool him.

I can only imagine the kind of "Mad Max" society you gunnies want to impose, with half the populace running around with axes and meat cleavers, and the other half looking like Rambo armed with AK-47's to counter the bad guys!

I have just spent the umteenth weekend moving around the city with complete freedom, felt relaxed enjoying ourselves at a 'Street Party' Saturday night. I don't think it would be your scene, too many alternative people, who would look rather strange to you guys. some looked rather strange to me, but nice people As part of the entertainment my partner sung a few traditional Maori songs, they loved it. Yesterday, out and about with our grandkids, moving around freely on public transport. Guess what, not a gun, or a meat cleaver in sight! Lets keep it that way, that's the status quo I support.

Paul,

Do you mean that the Greens do not support the 1996 Gun Laws?

Geez! I thought that they were 100% behind John Howard; certainly enough of the current gun laws are on their site under the guise of Greens' policy to make one think that they support the status quo.

The reason that you didn't see any guns in your roaming around the big smoke is that the crime have them under their clothing.

It’s good to know some people have a good and safe time roaming free in a city but what about those not so fortunate? You know, the ones who make up the daily news about assaults and robberies and home invasions.

Home invasions were unheard of when rifle and shotgun possession was virtually unrestricted.
Rocket science is not required to understand that criminals are more reluctant to invade a home if they think the occupant may have a gun.
Now, unarmed occupants are easy to assault and rob.

Police patrol cities but there are no police anywhere in sight at night on an outback roadside, for example where the Falconio disappearance occurred in the NT.

What are outback fencing contractors or musterers supposed to do for defence when some criminal just walks into their remote camp, knowing nobody has a gun for defence?
When guns were available previously there was a deterrent factor that helped keep crime at bay.

The Greens seem to using gun debate for political purpose.
Why would a green organization have agenda involving guns and no agenda to question salmon aquaculture pollution that is condoned and apparently approved for a price by major conservation organizations?
http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/four-corners/NC1604H040S00

There can be no doubt Australian coastal longshore current is driven northwards by winds from the south and south east.
That current transports heavy sand and dissolved and solid nutrient matter northwards, from Tasmania into waters of the Great Barrier Reef and Cape York.
Weather synopsis maps show the halo of sand circling Tasmania and sweeping northwards across Bass Strait. There are no sand islands off the coast of Tasmania.
The heavy sand falls over the Continental Shelf at Frazer Island and dissolved and lighter solid nutrient matter continues north westward into GBR lagoon waters.

Surely The Greens should be looking into the total nutrient load from all sources that can amount to nutrient overload pollution transported northwards by the Australian Sediment Dispersal System into the Great Barrier Reef ecosystem.
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/pdfz/abstracts/pdf/2002/annual/short/ndx_43867.pdf.html

Why do the Greens have policy on guns and not on nutrient pollution flowing into GBR waters?