I was browsing and came across this, funny that it didn't seem to get local coverage, had it turned out differently the ABC, the Greens and Gun Control Australia (all three members) would have been shouting from the rooftops.
http://www.kiro7.com/news/local/police-armed-civilian-took-down-shooter-at-washington-state-walmart/771791480

Is Mise - A few months ago I posted US government figures that more people had been saved by a person having a gun than by people using a gun on others.

That one got no coverage here.

Philip S,

Would you mind posting it again?

A head or two might come out of the sand but I has me doubts!!

An unpublished Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study confirms Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck’s findings of more than two million defensive handgun uses (DGUs) per year.

Since the early 1990s, Kleck has maintained that there is a minimum of 760,000 DGUs annually. That is his low estimate; Kleck and research partner Marc Gertz have contended the actual number is closer to 2.5 million.

Kleck reaffirmed his numbers on February 17, 2015, explaining that while plenty of naysayers have criticized his findings, none have been able to offer empirical evidence to counter them.

Now, a CDC study conducted on data from 1996, 1997, and 1998 has been uncovered. The study, which was never released to the public, shows approximately 2.46 million DGUs per year.

Kleck summarized the CDC findings:

In 1996, 1997, and 1998, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted large-scale national surveys asking about defensive gun use (DGU). They never released the findings, or even acknowledged they had studied the topic. I obtained the unpublished raw data and computed the prevalence of DGU. CDC’s findings indicated that an average of 2.46 million U.S. adults used a gun for self-defense in each of the years from 1996 through 1998 – almost exactly confirming the estimate for 1992 of Kleck and Gertz (1995). Possible reasons for CDC’s suppression of these findings are discussed.

On April 20, 2018, Reason magazine quoted Kleck’s reaction to the unpublished CDC findings; he explained that a figure of 2.46 million DGUs a year “[implies] that guns were used defensively by victims about 3.6 times as often as they were used offensively by criminals.”

Philip,

Thanks for that and here's a link also,
http://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/2018-What-Do-CDC%E2%80%99s-Surveys-Say-About-the-Frequency-of-Defensive-Gun-Uses.pdf

Now the usuals can pop up and quote all the rebuttals.

From memory only one person commented on it to thanks for putting it up, the lefties were conveniently quiet.

Dear Is Mise,

Happy to respond.

You post a story from 8 months ago and wonder why it didn't get more coverage here.

Here is a list of mass shooting from the same country the US over just a four week period this year.

None of those got much coverage either.

Feb 16th 2019 Mass shooting 5 dead http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/incident/1328562

Feb 11th 2019 Mass shooting 5 dead http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/incident/1324279

Feb 15th 2019 Mass shooting 6 dead http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/incident/1327321

Feb 3rd 2019 Mass shooting 4 dead http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/incident/1320286

Jan 26th 2019 Mass shooting 5 dead http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/incident/1312284

Jan 24th 2019 Mass shooting 4 dead http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/incident/1310397

Jan 24th 2019 Mass shooting 4 dead http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/incident/1310775

Jan 23rd 2019 Mass shooting 5 dead http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/incident/1309114

I'm not about to list all of them from the time of your civilian shooter because it is far too onerous a task.

Now I know stories of civilians taking out the bad guys gives your lot a bulge in your pants because you search for them and repeatedly post them when you can. It completely fits with the type of gun fetishisation that we are trying to avoid in this country.

However the type of society you would have us become where being armed with a firearm is both routine and arguably prudent is not one most thinking Australians want for our nation.

I say again, take your fetish and move. Really. I think I could probably help with the airfare if it was to be permanent. You are a danger to Australians and the toll in innocent lives if you were to get your way would undoubtedly be horrendous.

There you go mate, hopefully that was that the type of response you were after.

Steele,

I knew that I could depend on you, statistics and psychology both.

Hi there STEELEREDUX...

I'm all for sensible gun control. But there's still, a firm place for gun ownership as well. I saw good evidence of that when years ago 1956 or '57 I joined the Hurstville VDC Rifle Club; we shot at the old ANZAC Rifle Range at Liverpool near Sydney.

Being a very conservative club, they could pick & choose who they would admit as members. One of the criteria was you must be a minimum of 17 yoa. All new members were required to attend a 'new members' night, where you were fully appraised of the rules and regulations of the club.

A query I had, what did the initials VDC stand for? As there were many such clubs with those same initials shooting at ANZAC on a Saturday & Sunday? It was short for 'Volunteer Defence Corps' - an initiative by the Government & the Military, to ensure they were never caught short again, with having virtually no men trained, with the use of military rifles.

I accept technology has advanced somewhat. Nevertheless, soldiers will still need to be trained in the use of small arms, irrespective of how advanced technology has become in prosecuting any conflict.

The value of fire-arms in the hands of law-abiding
citizens needs to be measured in terms of lives
saved or crimes prevented not criminals killed.

We need to ask for every criminal killed in self
defense how many innocent people die? To assess
the benefits of self-defense we need to measure crime
and injury averted. The particular outcome of the
offender is of little relevance.

We don't judge whether the police are doing a good
job by the number of criminals they kill each year.
But rather by how well they stop crime. The same
should be true in judging the effectiveness of civilian
defense gun use.

One recent Washington Post story reported that "For
every criminal killed in self-defense, 34 innocent
people die."

cont'd ...

Here's the link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/19/guns-in-america-for-every-criminal-killed-in-self-defense-34-innocent-people-die/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1737c98c8233

Dear o sung wu,

I hear you but last week a large town near us had a drive by shooting involving a semi-automatic weapon. The owner of the house returned fire. This was all in a quiet court close to were my mother lives. She has been there over 30 years and nothing like this has ever happened.

Our little country town had shots exchanged between two parties late last year. One of the elderly locals born in the town couldn't recall it ever happening before either.

We now have more guns in this country than pre Port Arthur and gun laws are getting more and more lax each election cycle.

We are marching toward a US style future unless we start to dig our heels in. It will not come with a bang but just in increments although I have little doubt we will likely get a school shooting within the next 5 years given the march of weaponry in our society.

I think the main drive is selfishness which is dressed up as 'individual freedom'. It is all imported US bulldust. My serving cousin has told me his deepening concerns about the number of weapons they are now finding in cars and homes, most not illegal but many in the hands of some people he would prefer not to have been given access.

Steele,

"We now have more guns in this country than pre Port Arthur and gun laws are getting more and more lax each election cycle."

and firearms crime is falling, so it would seem that the mantra "More guns means more crime" is fallacious.

Could you please shew me some evidence that gun laws are getting more lax?

Or are you just sprouting Gun Control Australia's three members' usual rants?

Of course, there are more guns than after the Buy-Back, the gun laws are working and more and more people are taking up the sport and complying with the law.

Why are you so down on law-abiding citizens

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-28/fact-check-gun-homicides-and-suicides-john-howard-port-arthur/7254880

I'm all in favour of the majority of our gun laws for without them we would not have the world-class facilities of our major complexes, nor would the minor ranges be in such good condition

Our local pistol range now has electronic control turning targets on the pistol range, the connection of the power alone was $10,000, paid by Government grant.
The main range has flushing toilets including a handicapped toilet so some of our members who are unfortunately restricted to wheelchairs can now attend the range without the previous hassles.

All in all, John Howard, the "Father of the Australian Gun Lobby" is to be commended.

Bye the way, Steele, I notice that on this and other posts you keep making sexual references, don't worry about it, dysfunction comes to all of us eventually; I'm told that there are medications available, so keep your chin, if nothing else, up.

Foxy Your link is to the Washington Post (fake news incorporated)

My figures were from the CDC, nice try but epic fail.

Also very noticeable SteeleRedux completely ignored the figure, wise move as she can't deny them and in total they make a mockery of her few examples.

Philip S.,

I cited The Washington Post, but the information is
also given in Forbes and the FBI's homicide database.
BTW - I didn't read your post . I usually don't as a
rule, unless it's addressed to me. I don't find your
information or you credible or of any particular interest.
All you ever do is whinge. So yesterday!

Foxy,

Did the Washington Post tell you that,

"WASHINGTON — In D.C., 160 people died by homicide in 2018, up from 116 in 2017 — a spike of about 40 percent.

In all, of the 534 people shot by another person in D.C. through mid-December, 23 percent ultimately died, according to statistics compiled by The Washington Post. That includes 12 deaths from previous years that police only recently deemed as homicides.

City officials say more gun violence has contributed to the rising number of murders, and D.C. saw one of the biggest increases in fatal shootings nationwide while most other major cities reported overall decreases.

Petty disputes between people who know each other and who have guns are at the root of the killings, the Post reports.

While homicides soared in D.C., deaths from shootings were down in other parts of the region.

In Montgomery County, Maryland, homicides decreased from 21 in 2017 to 19 in 2018, while in Fairfax County, Virginia, fatal shootings fell from 18 to 13 across the past two years.

Maryland’s Prince George’s County saw one of the most significant annual drops, going from 80 homicides in 2017 to 60 last year. In the Arlington, Virginia, homicides went from four to just three in 2018.

“When you look at our known homicide offenders in the city, about 40 percent of those have a prior gun arrest,” D.C. police chief Peter Newsham said. “At all levels of the criminal justice system, we have to do better"
http://wtop.com/dc/2019/01/2018-homicides-in-the-district-increased-while-the-murder-rate-in-other-parts-of-our-region-went-down/

Is Mise,

That only confirms that the value of fire arms in the
hands of law-abiding citizens needs to be
measured in terms of lives saved or crimes prevented.
Which is the point being made.

Foxy - Enjoy your life as you by your words identify as a mushroom thrives on BS and usually kept in the dark.

Hi there STEELEREDUX...

Ordinary licensed shooters rarely commit a crime with the use of a firearm. Mostly it's criminals, with F/A's that are not licensed to them and have been sourced illegally. The rising hysteria surrounding F/A possession in NSW does little for sensible debate. The media added to it, by announcing, there were over a million licensed F/A's in the State, more than the advent of Port Arthur. We have one contributor herein, who persists in adding to the frenzy, by telling us the success of policing, is measured by stopping crime and what precisely the police should be doing or not doing. I guess with a view to expunge all F/A's out of the hands of all private individuals. Or some such arrant nonsense?

Shooting is a legitimate sport in this country. Whether it's hunting, destruction of ferals, or target shooting, nevertheless it's legal. It's also true; guns are weapons, designed to kill. Therefore I wonder how many folk are killed in Australia p.a., by a F/A? As opposed to that of a motor vehicle, which is still, according to my understanding, is yet to be determined, a weapon?

Just one small criticism if I may. Contributors herein, who continually make use of 'citations,' 'quotations,' 'some source or other,' or draw on some 'reference' from elsewhere:- with respect, please desist forthwith. I would much prefer to hear your own 'personal views; your opinions; and arguments'. Rather than this endless array of quotations, extracts, references, and other meaningless excerpts. That has been attributed from other authors, who know no better, and who're a mere figment of someone's imagination.

Foxy,

"That only confirms that the value of fire arms in the
hands of law-abiding citizens needs to be
measured in terms of lives saved or crimes prevented.
Which is the point being made."

It has been measured see the post: Posted by Philip S, Sunday, 10 March 2019 11:12:55 PM

Dear Philip S,

I didn't fully read your post because it started with this;

“An unpublished Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study confirms Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck’s findings of more than two million defensive handgun uses (DGUs) per year.”

So some tosser is quoting from an unpublished report and making a claim that it supports his findings? And a quick glance shows not a single link in your post.

Why on earth would I bother. Both I and Foxy managed to post links, in fact I posted one for every single mass shooting I quoted. You managed zero.

You are just being a lazy flog. Go do your homework and get back to us. If adequately referenced I will take a look.

Dear Is Mise,

Bloody hell mate I gave you the response you wanted and now you are whinging about it being too sexual? Isn't there an inverse correlation between penis size and gun ownership, especially those who stockpile hundreds of them? It's my stock standard reply and you should be used to it.

You say; “Could you please shew me some evidence that gun laws are getting more lax?” Nope because we have done this dance before where I had clearly laid out a number of instances as examples yet you are regurgitating this same bloody question.

You claim that firearm crime is falling yet;

“MELBOURNE'S FATAL SHOOTINGS IN MARCH:
* MARCH 1: Cragieburn dad Ben Toigai, 30, was shot dead outside a Kensington boxing match. Two other men also suffered gunshot wounds in the same attack.
* MARCH 3: Mitat Rasimi, aged in his 50s, died after crashing his car into a pole at Dandenong, but police believe gunshots he received earlier caused his death.
* MARCH 4: Two men - Ali Ali, 28, and Deniz Hasan, 40 - died after being shot at Meadow Heights. One was being wheeled around in a shopping trolley calling for help before he died.
* MARCH 10: An unnamed man shot dead at Springvale allegedly by a 19-year-old Dandenong man known to him.”

http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/melbourne-man-dies-of-gunshot-on-road/news-story/be46a1c9d6e371bce243f381c69c9cd2

Steele,

“Could you please shew me some evidence that gun laws are getting more lax?” Nope because we have done this dance before where I had clearly laid out a number of instances as examples yet you are regurgitating this same bloody question."

Well, regurgitate the same answers because as I remember it you failed miserably to shew where gun laws have become more lax.

Keep up the sexual references, they point to some deficiency.

Your references to shootings are irrelevant as what I was pointing out is that when a civilian uses a gun in successful defence there is never any mention of it in our press.

Why are you so down on law-abiding people who want to shoot and who comply with the law?

The recent Melbourne shootings, five in number, are irrelevant as they were by criminals, who, you might be surprised to know ignore the law.

Dear o sung wu,

Re your 'small criticism' first. I looked at my reply to you and it was opinion and personal anecdotal experiences without a link in sight. However I will say that if someone says something is fact when there is evidence to the contrary they will get as many references as it takes to set the record straight. So I'm afraid I can't give you any more than that.

John Edwards legally owned two pistols which he purchased with the intent of taking the lives of his daughters. He passed all the legal requirements to become a member of a gun club. It was Is Mise's associations club who took him in allowed him to purchase those weapons and trained him in their use.

Perhaps I could get your opinion on this farmers concern about the proposed ban on silencers being lifted.

Are you supportive of this farmer's stance?

“Sheep, cattle and grain farmer, Leonard Vallance, is the head of the Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) livestock group and is also a licensed firearm user.

He said that while most shooters do the right thing, illegal shooting on rural properties was a problem and he did not want that group having access to silencers.

"They shoot stuff that they shouldn't shoot, they leave gates open, they leave rubbish around the property, and they're generally a nuisance," Mr Vallance said.

"They are a safety hazard to the farmer, livestock and the wider community."

Mr Vallance said if more people could legally use silencers there would be other safety risks as well.

"My concern would be that if the firearms were stolen with silencers fitted to them they could then enter into the illegal crime market and that would be a problem for everyone," he said.

"In the last 12 months, two of my neighbours have had their gun safes broken into on their properties and they were locked away properly, bolted down and secured, and they still had their firearms stolen out of their gun safes."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-25/victorian-parliament-bill-to-legalise-firearm-silencers/10030892

I do not support weakening of laws to allow silencers. Do you?

Steele,

"I do not support weakening of laws to allow silencers. Do you?"

Emphatically no.

I have no desire to see silencers legalized beyond the present requirements.
But concerns that they might fall into the hands of criminals are absurd, criminals can already get silencers if they want them.
They are readily available and legally from most automotive stockists and I don't mean exhaust silencers.

Silencers don't work too well on most pistols and only really work on locked breech firearms and then they require the use of low powered sub-sonic ammunition.
Any gun that uses ammo whose velocity exceeds the speed of sound will still have the sonic crack of the sound barrier being broken and there is no way to stop that.

Dear Is Mise,

You wrote;

“Well, regurgitate the same answers because as I remember it you failed miserably to shew where gun laws have become more lax.”

Nick off.

“Keep up the sexual references, they point to some deficiency.”

Exactly which is why I make them.

“Your references to shootings are irrelevant as what I was pointing out is that when a civilian uses a gun in successful defence there is never any mention of it in our press.”

So your one perpetrator being shot by a civilian last year should rate more of a mention than 8 mass shootings over a single month period?

“Why are you so down on law-abiding people who want to shoot and who comply with the law?”

Because they are fuelling a gun culture and supplying the criminal classes through having their caches stolen. Absolutely no issue with farmers having guns it is just the weaponisation of our suburbs I object too.

“The recent Melbourne shootings, five in number, are irrelevant as they were by criminals, who, you might be surprised to know ignore the law.”

How do you know that? Are you saying no weapon was legally owned? Or are you just making this up as you usually do?

Dear Is Mise,

You wrote;

“Steele, "I do not support weakening of laws to allow silencers. Do you?" Emphatically no.”

Well bully for you mate it means Jack.

You asked for an example of a weakening of gun laws and there it was, yet your response was just 'well I don't support it so it is irrelevant'.

Doesn't cut it I'm afraid.

Will you actively campaign against it within your organisation? Will you offer to resign your membership over it?

Emphatically no I would imagine.

All bloody talk mate.

Steele,

"You asked for an example of a weakening of gun laws and there it was, yet your response was just 'well I don't support it so it is irrelevant'." ( in reference to weakening gun laws).

That is not an example of weakening gun laws as there has been no weakening, allowing more access to silencers is a proposal.

Now shew me where the gun laws have been weakened, you can't because they haven't been weakened but on the contrary, they have been strengthened.

Philip S.,

Your claim about my identifying as a mushroom
is wrong.( No surprises there).
I'm a sunflower. I always end up facing the
sun but I go through a lot of dirt to find my way
there.

Here's a "golden oldie" just for you about mushrooms:

"Why did the mushroom go to the party?

Because he's a fun - gi!"

Dear Is Mise,

Okay mate, I'm a sucker for punishment. Why don't we try these one at a time with the proviso that if you deem something which is patently a weakening not so then we stop the dance.

"Applications under the business/employment genuine reason must demonstrate that a suppressor is ‘necessary’ in the conduct of the applicant’s business or employment."

"In February 2016 the NSW Firearms Registry’s ‘genuine reason’ application form was amended to include the recreational/sporting purposes genuine reason, which prompted a substantial increase in suppressor applications which had previously been suppressed."
Sporting Shooters website.

This is a weakening of the national gun laws which deemed applying a silencer to a weapon made it prohibited.

Steele,

There are no national gun laws, so none of them has been weakened.

"Okay mate, I'm a sucker for punishment. Why don't we try these one at a time with the proviso that if you deem something which is patently a weakening not so then we stop the dance"

So, if I disagree then you take your bat and go home?

The extending of the silencer provision in NSW was deemed necessary because certain persons needed a silencer and if they comply with the NSW guidelines then they may now apply.
How many licences for silencers have been issued would be more to the point than the number of applications.
The ban on silencers is stupid law, they are encouraged in the UK, possibly because the lawmakers in the UK are not influenced by TV 'cops and robbers' shows.

Any criminal who wants a silencer can buy one and they are not hard to make.
http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CAFB_enAU718AU718&q=how+to+make+a+silencer+out+of+pvc+pipe&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjd9OKfsPvgAhUh7HMBHSGGDLMQsAR6BAgCEAE&biw=1008&bih=604

http://archive.org/stream/How_To_Make_Disposable_Silencers/How_To_Make_Disposable_Silencers_djvu.txt

http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CAFB_enAU718AU718&biw=1008&bih=604&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=vwKHXLehCoa_9QOs6LjwAw&q=using+auto+oil+filters+as+firearm+silencers&oq=using+auto+oil+filters+as+firearm+silencers&gs_l=img.12...22527.31147..36219...0.0..0.253.2661.0j15j1......0....1..gws-wiz-img.TuSlB3STiAA

Go for it, knock one up in the shed!!

Dear Is Mise,

Strewth mate, a quick dive to the semantics? Oh well par for the course.

The National Firearm Agreement strove for uniform gun laws nation wide. The States signed up for the provisions and they can only be changed if voted on unanimously.

It is the application of these provisions where the States have exercised wriggle room either by not applying them fully or eroding them in the breach so to speak.

You wrote;

“So, if I disagree then you take your bat and go home?”

No it is more if you are patently disingenuous in the discussion then I have better things to do with my time.

You wrote;

“The extending of the silencer provision in NSW was deemed necessary because certain persons needed a silencer and if they comply with the NSW guidelines then they may now apply.”

So weakening the provision of limiting silencers to business/employment applications by opening it up to recreational shooters in you terminology becomes 'extending the provision'?

You have just given a prime example why discussing this with you is so repetitive and inane. Most halfway intelligent people would accept this is a weakening of gun laws yet you are unable to do so. Why do you think that is? Are you so in thrall by the gun industry mantras that black becomes white?

Instead you bang on about how easy they are to make in the shed or that criminals can buy them anyway as though that gives some sort of justification when it obviously doesn't.

So it comes down to a very simple yes or no question. Do you believe that now allowing recreational shooters access to silencers qualifies as a weakening of what had been existing gun laws?

If you can't concede even something as clear as this then continuing the dance would seem to rather pointless don't you agree

Hi there STEELEREDUX...

My criticism concerning the endless use of quotes & references was not for you Steele, rather another on this Site. I (personally) like to hear of other's opinions & views no matter how awry they might be with mine. I guess it's a throwback from my working days where one virtually never cites conversations or opinions by others, except under special circumstances.

Do I support the legalization of 'sound suppressors' fitted to F/A's that would be made available to the ordinary licensed shooter? No! Such attachments should remain within the exclusive preserve of covert, military or law enforcement functionaries. I can't see any legitimate application for the ordinary shooter, though I stand to be corrected otherwise. IS MISE might have a better explanation than mine - His knowledge is immense, far more so than my own, when it comes to the needs of sanctioned hunters.

An area that I've discussed at an informal level, with other police; was the increase of penalties. Whereas during the commission of a crime, a F/A is used, an additional five years penal servitude is added, to the original head sentence, 'e curia.' This amendment might slow down some of the 'gun-toting' crooks who like nothing more than menacing and terrorizing staff during the prosecution of an armed robbery somewhere!

In conclusion Steele, I do encourage the sport of shooting, by responsible licensed shooters. I don't own a gun myself. Anybody who has possession of a F/A must ensure that F/A is secure, and locked away, separate from any ammunition. These other individuals (albeit they're licensed shooters) who by their irresponsible behavior, especially after they've been given the privilege to shoot on somebody else's property, are so uncaring, by leaving rubbish scattered about, paddock gates left open, and in some cases, the domestic stock has been shot dead. This type of behaviour is utterly intolerable and unforgivable in my opinion.!

Dear O Sung Wu,

I suspect that it was my you were referring to in your critique
of the consistent use of quotes and links. My sincere apologies
to you for obviously causing you stress. The only explanation
I can offer is that it's an occupational habit. As a librarian
you're taught to refer people to a wide variety of sources
and opinions for information and allow them to make up
their own minds on issues. We're taught that our own opinions
are irrelevant - that information has to be based on facts
and usually from expert sources. I have tried to sincerely
express my opinions in many cases - and I feel that I am
getting better at it. But old habits die hard.

Anyway, I shall keep trying and Thank You for pointing it
out to me. I respect your opinion.

Dear o sung wu,

Thank you for your answer. It obviously leads to this question;

Given the rules around silencer use were changed to include recreational users in 2016 would you acknowledge this was a weakening of gun regulation within NSW?

Steele,

When did the National Firearms Agreement become Law?

It is an agreement, nothing more and not complying with its provisions is not weakening the law, in some cases, it strengthens the law.

My main objection to silencers is that I want to know if someone is shooting in my vicinity, likewise, if I'm shooting I want people within hearing range to know what is going on, for safety.
Then there is the effect on game, I want them to run when a shot is fired, I make one shot kills 99% of the time and I can only eat so much.
One of the reasons that I mostly hunt with a single shot muzzle loading shotgun is that I have to make the shot count and if I'm after rabbits then they have calmed down a bit by the time that I've reloaded, cleaned the flint and reprimed.
I can see a use for silencers when hunting foxes as I give them no quarter, I use an electronic lure and sub-sonic .22 rimfire ammo, so usually they don't hear much at all.
Except when the area doesn't have much cover then I use my Ruger single shot precision rifle in .220 Swift, it's a big bang rifle.

Dear Is Mise,

Good Lord are you really that thick?

This was your earlier post;

Quote

Steele,

"You asked for an example of a weakening of gun laws and there it was, yet your response was just 'well I don't support it so it is irrelevant'." ( in reference to weakening gun laws).

That is not an example of weakening gun laws as there has been no weakening, allowing more access to silencers is a proposal.

Now shew me where the gun laws have been weakened, you can't because they haven't been weakened but on the contrary, they have been strengthened.
Posted by Is Mise, Tuesday, 12 March 2019 8:38:02 AM

End quote

The link I gave was for Victoria where indeed this is still a proposal. However in NSW the laws were changed in 2016 to allow recreational shooters access to silencers. So by your own definition the laws have been weakened in that state.

Look mate you have made it pretty clear you really only think the only positive of gun laws is because of entirely selfish reasons;

“I'm all in favour of the majority of our gun laws for without them we would not have the world-class facilities of our major complexes, nor would the minor ranges be in such good condition”

You show scant regard for the victims of gun violence except when you are pushing the 'let's arm our civilians' garbage.

But you obfuscate and prattle of about your precious guns instead of answering a simple bloody question. I will ask it again will as little ambiguity as I can muster;

When NSW decided to no longer restrict silencers where "Applications under the business/employment genuine reason must demonstrate that a suppressor is ‘necessary’ in the conduct of the applicant’s business or employment." but rather them up to the recreational shooting did that constitute a weakening of its existing gun laws or not?

The answer is NO. allowing others to access so called silencers strengthened gun laws because it removed an anomally.

Whenever laws are made fairer then they are strengthened.

Over in NZ they don't seem to have a problem with silencers.
http://www.lafo.com.au/suppressors-good-enough-nz-banned-aus/

The ease with which criminals or anyone else can make/improvise silencers makes a joke of Australia's obsession with banning them.

There is a vast difference between the slight pop of the film/tv silencer and their use in real life.

The OH&S aspect in the above link, whilst true, is in my professional opinion obfuscating bulldust.

I am hearing impaired by industrial deafness, too many years of test firing didn't help and some years in the Infantry where hearing protection is not only not worn but is strictly forbidden didn't help either.

I have no difficulty on the range however as I know the commands and the range officer always waits for my thumbs up that I'm up to speed on the orders before firing commences. I am not so deaf that I cannot hear a shouted CEASE FIRE, which is the most important command on the range, and it is always shouted.

Steele,

Here's an example of the strengthening of the gun laws, stupid, but an example none the less.

"Lever-action shotguns with a five-round magazine will no longer be a Category A firearm and will now be officially classed as a Category B firearm. A lever-action shotgun with a magazine capacity greater than five rounds will be classed Category D."

They have been Cat A since the introduction of the current post Port Arthur laws, one wonders why it has taken 20 years to suddenly become afraid of them.
http://ssaavic.com.au/lever-action-shotgun-reclassification-passed/?utm_source=SSAA+Victoria+e-newsletters&utm_campaign=5b9242665c-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_03_08_03_10&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_205558685a-5b9242665c-39047113

Hi there FOXY...

Not only you but yes you're chief among them. FOXY you would be one of the most erudite contributors on this Site, and certainly among one of the most intellectual. Your own thoughts are brilliant and well reasoned, and for me at least need no further explanation. And it's true; I'm at odds with some of your views and opinions, nevertheless, that's really what the Forum is all about; idea(s) and opinions.

Whereas I'm at the bottom end of the spectrum, and I write like a typical 'walloper,' which is very much a learned process, I'm afraid, often described as being 'stilted,' & 'conventional' Unlike your flowing narrative, easy to read and interesting to the last letter.

FOXY, I'm probably alone in my observations, and I appreciate, as a Librarian, you have a professional requirement to seek out and reproduce many quotes, extracts & references to underpin your arguments and opinions when others seek your advice, apropos all the relevant data on a particular subject. To me, a Librarian is very much like an encyclopedia. Only a 'human' font of knowledge?

Dear Is Mise,

Well there we have it. Changing legislation to allow recreational shooters to access silencers for their weapons would be deemed a weakening of gun laws by 99% of the population. To claim it is instead strengthening them as you say wouldn't pass the pub test in a single establishment across the country.

The only thing that addles a person's brain to such a degree is a fetish. You have one about guns. It permeates everything you say and do about them. It is dangerous, delusional, and likely adding to a mindset that will end up costing Australian lives.

Even o sung wu who feels it is important to have your back says quite clearly that “Such attachments should remain within the exclusive preserve of covert, military or law enforcement functionaries.” and I fully agree with him.

I clearly stated I didn't want to go down this path again with you because I knew the outcome, but you insisted. Well here we are again, you calling white black and in complete denial.

We are probably doomed to repeat this dance as you will walk away from this being convinced in your mind that I didn't demonstrate that the laws had been weakened. I think the few people who have had the patience to still be following this conversation would likely disagree not that it would make an iota of difference to you.

Go easy on the gun oil though mate, you might get RSI in that wrist of yours.

Hi there STEELEREDUX...

On one level it can be inferred the NSW decision might be seen as a weakening of the gun laws.On the other, there's been no weakening at all.

A sound suppressor is not an integral component of a F/A. It's merely an attachment to reduce the report of a F/A when discharged. All it does is reduce the level of that report, nothing else. Whenever the military/paramilitary covert groups, wish to reduce the sound of their guns, it's not only a suppressor they use but the type of ammunition as well. Both are important considerations, whenever these specialist operatives select their equipment and munitions.

To be quite truthful with you Steele I'm a bit out of the loop when it comes to the laws regulating the possession and use of F/A's and their various attachments like, 'bump stocks', 'suppressors' etc.

Steele,

I sincerely hope, for your sake, that you don't lose the sight of your other eye.

Nary a word about my example of the strengthening of the gun laws; and you can't shew one instance of them being weakened, suppressors, as O Sung Wu pointed out are not guns, and the National Firearms Agreement is not law, so any so-called weakening of it is not a weakening of the law.

So, go and hide.

Dear Is Mise,

Come on young fella, are you serious. You are condemned by your own words.

“That is not an example of weakening gun laws as there has been no weakening, allowing more access to silencers is a proposal.”

So because it was still just a “proposal” in Victoria there had been no weakening but now when I pointed out in NSW it is now law it suddenly becomes a 'strengthening'?

Get your hand off it mate. Your story chops and changes like that of a panicked drowning rat.

I don't believe you and most people would correctly judge you as completely disingenuous on this. Anything I put up as evidence of weakening will be treated in the same disingenuous manner won't it.

You really do take the cake.

Dear o sung wu,

Noted.

Dear O Sung Wu,

You've always been close to my heart in the many
years we've shared on this forum. And I've
valued your opinion. I sometimes don't adequately explain
my position or I express things that are taken the wrong
way to what was intended. I am learning to try to keep
things shorter and more to the point - perhaps I'll be
less misunderstood that way. Thank You for understanding
and your kind words.

Steele,

A proposal and a law are two different things and I see the allowing of silencers, by the relevant authorities, as strengthening the law not eroding it.

Why are you ignoring the strengthening that I have shewn you?

Doesn't fit the agenda?

You'd be on the side of the Greens who stopped the proposal by the SF&F's Party from having the penalties for the unlawful use of firearms increased; would that impact on your mates too?

Here's another strengthening of the gun laws,

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/691/098/077/reverse-unjustified-and-ill-informed-regulation-that-will-destroy-firearms-collections-of-museums/

Further to the above.

"The purpose and operation of Museums are vastly different to any other stakeholder possessing firearms. We exist for the community and display a range of artefacts of historical, educational and community value. Grouping Museums as part of the overall firearms collective is mistaken and does not reflect the important role that Museums play in this field.

Through the new Regulation, the Government is forcing Museums to destroy their valuable and historically significant artefacts.

The impact of the new Regulation on the Lithgow Small Arms Factory Museum will be devastating with around 70% of our comprehensive firearms collection irreversibly destroyed. We will lose significant value, considerable patronage and become non-viable. And with this, there will be an unimaginable loss of history, knowledge and community-based volunteering spirit.

Moreover, the cultural, scholarly and scientific significance of heritage firearms collections, including our understanding of the technological evolution of such firearms will be seriously compromised. For example, prototypes, first issue and rare firearms will be lost in line with the destruction of our collection.

The 9000 annual visitors we have through our doors, the many local and international technical researchers and the ballistics personnel using our facilities for research and/or investigative purposes, and our extensive archives amassed over the past 22 years will all be adversely impacted, and lost forever."

"In 2006 Ron Hayes donated his amazing handgun collection to the museum. Rarities in the Hayes Gallery include the Borchardt, Webley 1904, and the Persian Luger. Among the 800 varied handguns featured are a number of gold plated and hand-engraved presentation masterpieces."

This latest unwarranted assault on firearm owners will somewhat adversely affect any future donations.

http://www.lithgowsafmuseum.org.au/

Hi, there IS MISE...

Our mate STEELEREDUX is implacably against F/A ownership for us suburban dwellers, though I understand you live in the bush. Nevertheless, I believe STEELEREDUX can be persuaded otherwise, with both logical and rational discussion. Therefore as a bush dweller, you have a reason to possess a Single Shot .22. Which in the minds of most anti-gun advocates, would be more than adequate to take care of game from the size of a Bull Pachyderm to a fully grown Bengal Tiger, as well as the humble Rabbit.

Unfortunately, the anti-gun lobby has no, in-between, nor balance in their views. For instance, a .177 Gecado should be able to accommodate most ferals that do so much harm to stock & property. Therefore they need to be re-educated and shown the folly of their ways by having it pointed out to them, a F/A is a tool; it has a purpose and a well-defined function. And whether they agree or not, an indispensable tool right across the entire spectrum.

Those of us in the 'burbs,' who like to keep their eye in with their F/A of choice, I see no problem at all, after scrutiny, they should not receive a F/A Licence? As you know IS MISE, we license M/V drivers, Aircraft pilots, etc., both of which have proven records, of being the originators of fatalities, some of which have been immense, yet the anti-gun lobby is all over the legitimate use of F/A's, and there owners. One might wonder why? Is it the intent of a 'Greens' Government to disarm the entire nation?

Dear o sung wu,

I'm afraid the likelihood of having a logical and rational discussion with a bloke who thinks opening up silencers to sporting shooters is a strengthening rather than a weakening of gun laws.

But leaving that aside I do have a question if I may.

This is a report of a man going to a rifle range in South Australia with the express purpose of killing himself. He did not have a licence and while the instructor's back was turned for a moment he turned the gun on himself and fired. He was the third suicide at that range. The range in now putting in tethers and perspex shield in an attempt to prevent that happening again.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/report-to-be-prepared-for-coroner-following-death-of-person-at-marksman-indoor-firing-range/news-story/a78a03ba83537794880c7f2fbfdf9a86?=

If guns were instead as prolific through our communities as Is Mise and perhaps yourself are seeking that people would not have to go to all the bother of seeking out a gun club in order to take their lives, would this result in more or less suicides or don't you think it would make any difference?

Steele,

Just the other day in NSW a bloke who was wanted for questioning in a murder ran head on into a truck and killed himself. what do you propose should be done to stop motor vehicle suicides which are much more common than the range suicide that you mention?

How are you getting on with the strengthening of the gun laws which I mentioned?

Are you miffed that the Greens managed to stop harsher penalties for gun crime?

Another strengthening of the law in NSW is the success of the online application process initiated by the NSW Police, so successful has it been that there have been 20,000 applications processed since its introduction in 2018.

" There was a decrease in suicides by firearms during the study period especially after 1996 when a new firearm control law was implemented, while suicide by hanging continued to increase. Areas with a high proportion of indigenous population (eg, northwest of Queensland and top north of the Northern Territory) had shown a substantial increase in suicide incidence after 1995."

Picking particular methods of suicide proves nowt, people will substitute the methods.
Hanging seems to be the most popular, are you going to seek to ban ropes?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4120400/

Dear Is Mise,

I thought we were done but oh well.

Damn mate you are turning yourself inside out over this one aren't you.

This is how we started;

“Could you please shew me some evidence that gun laws are getting more lax?”

I did by showing how the rules around those who could apply for a licence to use a silencer were relaxed.

You instead called this a strengthening.

However you also said you were emphatically against them. When I asked "I do not support weakening of laws to allow silencers. Do you?" you replied with “Emphatically no. I have no desire to see silencers legalized beyond the present requirements.”.

So does this mean you are against or for the strengthening or weakening of gun laws? Who knows? One thing I'm pretty sure of is you don't.

Perhaps you had better take some time to decipher your contradictory muddle and get back to us when you have worked it all out.

Steele,

“Emphatically no. I have no desire to see silencers legalized beyond the present requirements.”.
and I stand by that, what's your problem?
Comprehension of English?

How are you going with the strengthenings that I mentioned?

Do you think that Evelyn Owen's first gun and the rest of the prototypes that led to the Owen Gun which was used by Australian troops in WWII with such success, should be welded up?

In case you don't know about Owen and his gun,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Gun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5aBa_rqZ3s

Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin has signed a bill into law making it legal for state residents to carry firearms concealed without a license and also fostering an environment more hostile to federal gun control.

A coalition of 11 Republicans sponsored Senate Bill 150 (SB150). Under the new law, it is now legal to carry a firearm concealed in Kentucky without a license.

Persons age twenty-one (21) or older, and otherwise able to lawfully possess a firearm, may carry concealed firearms or other concealed deadly weapons without a license in the same locations as persons with valid licenses issued under KRS 237.110.

The state will continue to issue concealed carry licenses for those who wish to carry concealed in states that offer CCDW reciprocity.


SB150 passed the Senate by a 29-8 vote and cleared the House 60-37. With Gov. Bevin’s signature, the law will go into effect 90 after the conclusion of the legislative session.

Several “poison pill” amendments were proposed in the House to effectively kill the bill. Grassroots pressure was instrumental in holding legislators’ feet to the fire and moving the bill forward. Activist T.J. Roberts called the grassroots pressure “fundamental.”

Politicians do not support your fundamental liberty. The grassroots must put pressure on politicians to act in support of liberty. Multiple politicians wanted to kill this bill. Once they realized they would lose their job if they did kill the bill or poison it with anti-gun amendments, they fell in line.

Roberts said grassroots leaders are already looking at ways to build on the momentum.

A good next step for gun rights would be to nullify NICS in Kentucky by separating our background check system from that tyrannical federal system. In other issues, it may be time to pass the taxpayers bill of rights here in Kentucky.

Hi there STEELEREDUX...

A couple of things if I may; If an individual is set upon committing suicide, they'll do it irrespective of whether there is the availability of a F/A. I've attended enough deaths to recognise that when a human being decides to 'top themselves' they'll do it, and in some case through the most ingenious of ways. 'Kissing a Loco,' being the most bizarre I've ever seen, and truly horrible, and utterly unforgettable.

And secondly, I don't have a gun, nor do I intend obtaining one. I've been mandated to carry one of the damn things for the past 32+ years. Now I've retired, I have retired from; possessing, carrying, and using a F/A.

However, I can understand and appreciate that many people both male & female, enjoy the sport of shooting, or hunting. I mentioned earlier of, my involvement with the Hurstville VDC 'big bore' (military) .303 rifle shooting, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

I (personally) would hate to see a day when F/A's, the shooting sports, and hunting, are universally banned in Australia. If that were to occur, the rabid Greenies and the anti-gun lobbies would have won the day - If that were to happen, God help us!

By the By - One of the most coveted prizes available in any sporting activity is the 'Queens Prize.' Generally shot at Bisley in England. The winner is carried aloft at shoulder height (from the mound), in a specially designed wooden sedan chair, by four of his peers. Again IS MISE would know much more about the famed 'Queens Prize' than I do.

Steele,

There are drought affected farmer who are having to shoot their stock and most of these would appreciate a silencer, both for their benefit, the benefit of family members who may not want to hear the gunfire and last, but not least to stop the stock from panicking (to whatever degree that is possible).

A silencer is a prohibited weapon and the firearm to which it is attached becomes a prohibited weapon regardless of its normal categorization.

The applicant then, if successful, becomes a prohibited weapon holder with much more stringent laws to observe.

How is putting a person in a stricter category weakening the law?

The Commissioner of Police is the authority under whom the licence is issued, and few Silencer licences have been issued.
http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/online_services/firearms/permits/prohibited_weapon_permits/silencer

A law that is seen to be more rational and fairer is a strengthened law.

Of course, if you are more competent than the NSW Parliament and the Commissioner then go right ahead.

You are strangely silent about the strengthening examples that I've given.

Hi there STEELEREDUX & IS MISE...

As you've both probably heard by now, up to forty souls have been shot dead by some deranged gunman, in two separate Mosques, situated in Christchurch, New Zealand. What can we possibly say? God help us. My most profound sorrow, for those hapless victims of that deadly shooting.

Dear o sung wu,

Incredibly sad news.

Along with the deep sorrow I feel for the victims and their families and New Zealand as a nation there is anger.

I am going to call out every person on this thread who have referred to Muslim immigration to this country as an invasion, this is in part on your head.

For every person who has hyped anti-Muslim sentiments, have referred to them as less than human, who have attempted to drive fear and division in our community this is in part on you.

To every person on the forum who has voiced support for hard right fascist parties and policies, this is in part on you.

For every single selfish sod who wants easier access to weaponry, this is in part on you.

For every race and religion baiter who has spread their poison on this forum, this is also in part on you.

Perhaps it is time to reflect on the way you have conducted yourselves and resolve to do far better in the future.

God damn it!

This was virtually part of his manifesto;

I believe that France has a muslim population between 20% and 30%.
The only betting going on there is when will the civil war start.
Unfortunately that is no longer a joke, people seem to be taking
it seriously. I do not read French so it is hard to get a realistic
idea of just what the feelings are in France.

People here seem mainly to talk as though the Islam problem is new.
Many are not aware and the schools certainly do not mention that
Islamic armies have been invading Europe India and Africa for 1400 years.

The whole of the middle east by the year AD500 was Christian, Jewish
and Zoroastrian. After Islam was formed the Arabs invaded Mesopotamia
and introduced Islam at the point of the sword and the three options.
Where are the Jews and Christians of those countries now ?

Between that time and today there have been about 800 battles between
Islamic armies and European armies.

The most notable campaigns were the battles for Spain, Sicily and the
Balkhams.

The invasion of France was stopped at Tours by Charles Martel in 732.
Saudi Arabia is financing the building of a celebratory mosque on the site of the battle.
Does that tell you something ?
The invasion of Switzerland seems to have ended after the Tours defeat.
Many are not aware that an Islamic army invaded and occupied the Vatican.
They were driven out by Italian local provinces.
Rome itself was weakened by the Arab slave trader's raids that over
years captured about one million Europeans and sold them in the
African slave markets. That continued with raids as far apart as
the coast of Britain, Ireland and even Iceland.

The two invasions of Austria are better known as they were defeated
at the gates of Vienna the last battle in 1683 when Vienna was saved
by the arrival of a Polish Army.
People criticise those Eastern European countries for refusing moslem
immigrants, but can you blame them after being occupied by muslims.

We, as the country Australia, should be concerning ourselves at the inevitable retaliation.

It is now time to start training armed guards for all possible targets and to have trained people, sworn as Special Constables and well armed, in everyday life so that no one known who they are or where they are.

Preparation is a thousand times better before the event than hand wringing after it.

Very sad news. 40 dead. My heart goes out the the community and the families of the victims. Hope and wish that there will be a time for the sorrow and morning that should accompany such a loss. But from what I keep seeing after mass shootings in the US, the sad news quickly turns to politics and for or against certian actions, which leads to the opposing side of those opinions also voicing their politics. So sad, and then not long after, not even the heart to morn with the people who lost it. Or the time given to show remorse for the deaths.

My thoughts and prayers will be with New Zealand and the Muslims in the area. Also be with all of you too. Good luck in the next following days.

So Is Mise, not a single word about the victims, 'just let me get my special constable pin so I get to walk around secret agent style and revel in my fetish to my heart's content'.

You sir are an absolute disgrace. What would be a really good idea is for you to put a plug in it for a while.

Hi there STEELEREDUX...

C'mon ol' man, what do you mean by telling IS MISE to, 'put a plug in it'! That goes against the whole tenor & objective of the Forum. Its purpose is to hear everyone's opinion irrespective whether you agree or not! And why does he, 'a disgrace' - because he has a different opinion to yours? Or is it the quality & themes that he's expressed in his opinion?

Now to another Post of yours if I may. You wrote inter alia, '...People criticize those Eastern European countries for refusing Muslim immigrants, but can you blame them after being occupied by Muslims...'. It's for this reason why Australia should not encourage Islamic settlers into this country, for very much the same reason. They can, and they do represent trouble.

Notwithstanding, Muslims in Australia represent a relatively small demographic, and nowhere near strong enough to cause any significant problems in this country. However, there's sufficient empirical evidence to suggest, that anywhere in the world where Muslims hold sway, there are invariably problems. Save for the strictly Islamic Nations of the Middle East who rule by religious fear, and 12th Century punishments. Accordingly, we don't need to experience that type of dread, any more than what I've already observed in Punchbowl & Bankstown in Sydney's SW Suburbs.

Steele,

Face up to what has and is likely to happen.

"I am going to call out every person on this thread who have referred to Muslim immigration to this country as an invasion, this is in part on your head.

For every person who has hyped anti-Muslim sentiments, have referred to them as less than human, who have attempted to drive fear and division in our community this is in part on you.

To every person on the forum who has voiced support for hard right fascist parties and policies, this is in part on you.

For every single selfish sod who wants easier access to weaponry, this is in part on you.

For every race and religion baiter who has spread their poison on this forum, this is also in part on you.

Perhaps it is time to reflect on the way you have conducted yourselves and resolve to do far better in the future.

God damn it!"

What incredible childish and petulant rubbish.

Hi (again) STEELETREDUX...

NO EXCUSES, I'm sorry I've misquoted you, and profoundly so! The middle paragraph of my last post, I'd attributed to you, and I was WRONG to do so. It came from the 'mission statement' of that murderous gunman in NZ. I'm sorry.

Whether whatever this madman had said was completely correct, his argument has been utterly neutralized by his murderous slaughter of innocents. Innocents who were doing nothing more than praying to their God.

Perhaps if anyone wanted to have a quick glimpse at evil incarnate, they need to go no further then to gaze upon the screwed up countenance of this arbitrary killer of worshipers.

Again, my apologies for misquoting you, Steele.

Dear o sung wu,

Thank you for your post.

I certainly don't resile one jot from what I said but I will acknowledge that furnishing a more fulsome explanation, given the query came from you, is warranted.

There is little doubt that over hyping, scaremongering, and blatant propaganda contributed to the radicalisation of this Australian lad. He was responding to that fearmongering in a way that others are no doubt contemplating.

So when Is Mise started yet again down that very path of promoting fear and mistrust in Muslim Australians it was simply more of the same, and therefore he was rightly asked to put a plug in it. The last thing we need to do in this country or NZ is propagate the very thing that caused it in the first place.

I acknowledge you find yourself in a position of defending him which is fine. But you will understand I hope that I am under no obligation to do so. I also hope that this is not the time to be attempting to stir up division and tension.

Secondly I'm afraid I have deliberately been a little obtuse with the quotation you feel you misused. I labelled it 'virtual' because I had actually taken the quote directly from one of Bazz's offerings. I wanted to make the point that one of our resident anti-Muslim posters would likely be indistinguishable from that of this terrorist.

My apologies that it ended up being you who flagged it but I feel the point has been made.

'There is little doubt that over hyping, scaremongering, and blatant propaganda contributed to the radicalisation of this Australian lad. '

so you mean the next mass murderer will be a gw warrior Steelie.

Steele,

I feel that I must apologise also, I remember well how you lamented the loss of Muslim lives the last time a mosque was attacked in Pakistan.
Here was me thinking that you were only making political capital because it was in NZ.

Do you think that there will be retaliation and if not, why not?

If you think that there might be retaliation, what do you think we can do to make Australia safer?

Is Mise,

No you will not be allowed to carry a concealed weapon to wander our streets looking for anybody who fits your stereotype.

Also given the language you have used in the past on this forum, and the fact you have numerous weapons, and the fact you are in the mind to go into our communities with a concealed firearm why on earth aren't you someone who should be reported to the authorities?

Hi (again) STEELEREDUX...

Thank you for 'letting me down more gently than I deserve' through the error of my wrongful quotation.

Unfortunately, Steele its no longer a case of 'stirring' the pot' and creating further division & tension, it's already here. It was overtly present, even when I headed one of the task forces into the Lebanese Crime Gang activities, operating out of the Bankstown & Punchbowl regions of Sydney.

Spread now to Wiley Park, Belfield, and its environs. You speak of guns - I would hasten to add, there are more illegal H'guns; 9mm Suby's; such as Uzi's, Ingram's, & H & K's MP5's, and other frightening F/A, of a type many an Aussie's, never seen?

When I was still in the job 10K, would get you a serviceable Subie. in 9mm. Anyone silly enough to want an Ingram Mod 10 in either 9mm or .45ACP. with a cyclic rate of fire of 1000rds pm, would pay upwards of 12 - 14K, and it would arrive in two separate packages. So patience was the key-word for all potential Ingram buyers, as well as a lot of cash.

Of course, I'm right out of it now, and most of my colleagues have also retired. So we only hear snippets of what's going on, and who's who in the Zoo. I would venture to say, there's more illegal F/A's in society, than those that are legal and registered. It's not a case whether will we have a Christchurch style, massacre in Australia, rather it's when?

Steele,

"Also given the language you have used in the past on this forum, and the fact you have numerous weapons, and the fact you are in the mind to go into our communities with a concealed firearm why on earth aren't you someone who should be reported to the authorities?"

Only in your mind am I wanting to go into our communities with a concealed firearm.
I have never said that I wanted to do so, it's all in your mind I do remember saying what a bloody nuisance it is to carry a concealed pistol, particularly when summer is coming on and one wants to take the coat off.
But do you think that there will be retaliation and if not, why not?
And what can Australia do to counter such a threat, that is If you think that there might be one?

Dear o sung wu,

You wrote;

“It's not a case whether will we have a Christchurch style, massacre in Australia, rather it's when?”

Unfortunately I think you are right.

Those peddling Islamaphobia will likely be further inspired to inflame as the election closes in.

There are others who are determined to see gun laws which have thus far protected us from such mass carnage dismantled. I hear the killer used a semi-automatic shotgun and a lever action weapon, both have been the subject of contention in Australia recently. The death toll is unlikely to weaken their resolve.

I am sure there will be others who are primed to respond to messages of fear and hate. It will take the hard work of all right minded Australians to help prevent the poison peddlers from their evil.

I was really pissed off when Australian citizens went to Syria and joined Isis. It was hard for me to reconcile it to our values and way of life. But there is a world of difference from going to fight in a war zone to taking a cache of guns to a mosque to kill 49 innocent unarmed people in a country like NZ. We have to live with the fact that one of us went and did that. It will not be easy and how the world view us, supposedly as a laid back country, will rightly suffer.

Steele,

Just for information purposes, but semi-automatic and lever action shotguns of the types available in NZ and Australia are not the deadliest guns if a sustained rate of fire is considered, the common double-barreled, self-cocking, ejector gun is faster and can fire more shots in a minute than either of them.

Double barrel shotguns are Cat A in Australia, the lowest category.

Hi there STEELEREDUX...

Let me be the first to inform you, there are enough guns in our community 'now,' to mount a dozen such massacres. Even the humble .22LR, if used correctly, will inflict a high rate of casualties. Ask Mossad who regularly employ the humble .22 shorts, to do their assassin's work for them. Sufficient energy to penetrate the skull, and leave it to the little lead projectile, to skew about happily, in the brain. The Sniper's credo - 'Shot placement' triumphs all else.

Even a 'cheap 'n nasty' Boito single shot 12g, in the practiced hands of a shooter, is very deadly indeed. You don't need to rely on a lever or slide action weapon to render mayhem in the community. Fear alone will often paralyse potential victims when confronted with imminent death.

Steels,

For your edification, anyone using a Martini single shot shotgun can put down withering fire and if two people man it, firer and loader then the rate of fire will exceed that of almost any other shotgun.

It's Category A, unlike the Brown Bess muskets of the First Fleet, with their rate of fire of 3 to 4 shots a minute, which type of deadly weapon is Category B and requires a more restricted licence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pijt-rB8g0o
The technology of 1788 is fearsome when compared to that of today.
http://allthingsliberty.com/2013/07/the-inaccuracy-of-muskets/

Just to keep you better informed.

Dear o sung wu,

I think there is a very good reason why an AR15 seems to be preferable for a mass shooter than any .22 variety of weapon but leaving that aside I wondering what you make of this blokes assessment of the killer's gun club?

http://www.facebook.com/memmbachewbaccha/videos/1887326531378466/

My assessment of the speaker is that he is lost for adjectives, what he says is probably true; he saw it, he said it so it must be true.

He also said that he warned the police, apparently, nothing was done
perhaps someone's unsubstantiated word is not enough to start things rolling in NZ.

steele,

"I think there is a very good reason why an AR15 seems to be preferable for a mass shooter than any .22 variety of weapon...".

The AR 15 is a .22 calibre weapon (5.56 mm =0.219 in, which to two places is 0.22), it is not the most powerful .22, so what's the point, apart from displaying your ignorance of the subject?

Hi there STEELEREDUX...

Thank you for your extract. I found the bloke relating the tale somewhat unconvincing. As if it was he alone, who was aware of the failures of the said Gun Club. Moreover, he believed he alone was the only one intelligent enough, to forewarn the authorities of it's (the Club's) alleged deficiencies, so he claimed?

I don't know all the facts Steele, so it's hard for me to form a balanced opinion, one way or another. It's been my experience in the past, some people believe, they alone have all the answers and watch out, anyone else who wishes to shift that mantle from them.

However, if he was the only credible witness, that was available to me, the first thing I'd do, is tell him to 'lose' all the expletives ASAP, before all semblance of credibility is lost completely.

Steele,

Where are you?

Looking for more weakened gun laws?

Dear o sung wu,

You wrote; "I found the bloke relating the tale somewhat unconvincing. As if it was he alone, who was aware of the failures of the said Gun Club. Moreover, he believed he alone was the only one intelligent enough, to forewarn the authorities of it's (the Club's) alleged deficiencies, so he claimed?"

I don't know mate but he seemed like he was under a fair amount of stress and anguish that he hadn't got the club investigated. You should know that as of the 17th of last month it closed it's doors. You don't do that if you really don't have a case to answer.

It looks like he has given up his guns too.

"I don’t NEED, want or care about guns. I can happily live my life without them. I’ve lost everything I’ve ever cared about, so literally have nothing to loose in those regards.

It sickens me that I’ve been offered money for interviews.... anyone I have spoken to has been out of my wish for sensible change. Anyone that has offered me money has been told to give it to the victims.

Please respect that as a fella that has seen much death, that has been dragged through the mud and tried desperately for YEARS to stop the inevitable happening.... I’m done. I’m sick of the “black rifle culture”, I’m sick of all the online hero’s, I’m sick of the ill informed people that say I’m racist hahahaha. Seriously... my mrs is a Latina, my mates are asians and I speak a bunch of Melanesia’s languages!

Cont

Cont

I am heartbroken at the loss of life in Christchurch. So much so I’m going to find a quieter place to live out my days in peace. NZ has put me through HELL. I don’t want to be publicly praised or to promote myself. I want sensible changes made to ensure the safety of all people.

I’ve defended my firearms license several times. I’ve been frustrated with police in action so many times, the family court has torn my heart out and it’s driven me to the point I’ve spent thousands on councillors as well as doctors. I’ve lost friends at war, to suicide and in many other ways. At times I’ve envied those who’s suffering has ended. But each time I’ve been down I’ve asked for help, I’ve not hidden it, nor have I blamed others.

Guys like me who put their feet in their mouths are not the ones police need to worry about. It’s the guys that aren’t prepared to give up their guns when asked....

Peace be with everyone and although I appreciate the literally thousands of messages of support. Please respect that I’d like to be left alone to pat horses and fade into obscurity once more.

I tried. And I failed. People died and I feel like I should have done more.

I’m sorry. Remember this guy, not the shooter, not me."

That guy was Naeem Rashid who rushed the shooter losing his life in the process.

Hi there STEELEREDUX...

Thank you for your clearly articulated argument once again. Like many Aussies, I no longer wish to have a firearm, I don't need one nor do I want one. But there are many law-abiding Aussies who do have licensed F/A's and regularly pursue their preferred shooting sports as well.

I can 'FULLY' understand the emotive effects the Christchurch massacre has had, on a broad range of people, including many of those who have licensed guns, and who regularly partake in their chosen sport.

We're regularly assaulted with visions of the carnage we see on our roads, caused by M/V accidents. Yet there's no suggestion we should do away with cars - before you comment, I realize that's a pretty puerile statement to make, but it does have similarities when you think about it?

I share your views when you speak of the horror that occurred in the Christchurch Mosques. What measures can be taken to ensure it's not repeated? Tightening up on the existing Firearms laws is not the answer. Nor does the removal of certain types of F/A's., other than all automatic or some semi-automatic weapons. Such is the burgeoning world of the illegal/underground importation of guns, it's hard to say, which of them to target first.

Initially, I'd look to penalties. Those apprehended with illegal guns; or commit a crime with the commission of a gun; we should follow the lessons of some States in the US. An additional 10 years added to their head sentence? I don't know Steele. Nor do many of the cops I used to deal with either.

There's one overriding consideration we must consider. Guns in the foreseeable future, are here to stay. Any attempts to unilaterally disarm the entire population would only cause chaos and possible civil insurrection. Moreover, it would drive the gun trade further underground!

For a while at least, we just have to accept the proliferation of F/A's for a bit longer. As tragedies occur, there'll be more pressure placed on governments to take more positive action on these people and their guns; I guess?

Dear o sung wu,

You write;

“Initially, I'd look to penalties. Those apprehended with illegal guns; or commit a crime with the commission of a gun; we should follow the lessons of some States in the US. An additional 10 years added to their head sentence?”

I think you may be missing a very obvious point, until the the NZ shooter walked through the doors of the mosque he was a law abiding gun owner. He had purchased his weapons and ammunition legally, he was a member of a gun club and all his licence details were up to date.

And why do you think adding 10 years to his possible sentence would have made one iota of difference in this case?

By all means deal more harshly with the trade in illegal weapons but unless you are prepared to engage with the issue of the access to legal military-style weaponry then I'm not sure it can be regarded as doing so in good faith.

As to the argument about cars I'm afraid I find it rather tenuous. The way our society and our cities are structured motor vehicle transport remains a necessity to the vast majority of Australians. It is impossible to argue the same for guns where the ownership is mostly about the sport. Sure they are tools for some but not the vast majority of owners.

However I will make the note that we are restricted to the type of vehicles permitted on our roads, for instance driving an F1 in suburbia is not allowed. Further if you visit Melbourne recently there are many barriers designed to protect against a willful attack such as what happened in Bourke Street.

Finally I'm wondering why you are arguing about restrictions here when it is about NZ adopting Australia's gun laws. When we introduced ours they did not “cause chaos” and “civil insurrection”. Ultimately though NZ is a sovereign country and if they come together as a nation feeling that more strict gun laws are warranted I think we should let them do so without demeaning the effort.

Hi (again) STEELEREDUX...

Now you're cheery picking through my statements. What I said inter alia...'any attempts to unilaterally disarm the entire population would only cause chaos and possible insurrection...'. I'll re-state the obvious yet again, for your benefit - guns are here to stay! Many police & military members have their own (personal) weapons. All duly registered and licensed.

Any government, even a bi-partisan arrangement, who attempted to disarm every gun owner of his guns, would possibly amount to civil insurrection. Of that, I have no doubt whatsoever. And it would drive guns further underground, where authorities would have no idea how to interdict successfully?

And I would respectfully suggest I know a little bit more about this area of the gun debate than you Steele?

To be sure, guns kill. Equally, we'll no doubt have other Port Arthur's and Christchurch horrors. But do you think, even for a nanosecond, confiscating every gun held by legitimate license holders will stop it? Not a chance.

There's such a vast underground gun trade going on in Australia, and most other countries where restrictions of F/A's hold sway. I would suggest you don't blame the gun; instead, you should look at what's driving these 'nutters' into committing these atrocious crimes.

Dear o sung wu,

With respect may I point out I dutifully attempted to furnish an opinion on each of the points you raised, even rebadging one that you had described as “puerile” instead as merely 'tenuous' and deserving of a proper consideration along with a fulsome reply.

If you feel I have taken things out of context or cherry picked then I will attempt to be more articulate on things like this in the future since that was not my intention. However you did label a particular point as the 'overriding consideration' and I felt you were clearly warning that removal of weaponry from the citizenry would likely cause civil unrest thus should be at the forefront of any thinking regarding gun law reform. Especially since you had earlier prefaced it with “I share your views when you speak of the horror that occurred in the Christchurch Mosques. What measures can be taken to ensure it's not repeated? Tightening up on the existing Firearms laws is not the answer.”

Perhaps my comprehension skills are a little off so you may need to illustrate why that was not a reasonable assumption.

Strangely no one has commented on Abdul Aziz, the man who is credited with stopping more murders in the second mosque in Christchurch.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/17/come-here-the-man-who-chased-away-the-christchurch-shooter

Perhaps it's because he is a Muslim, or because he picked up a firearm and was prepared to use it against the killer?

However it goes, I still think that he deserves a medal.

Is Mise,

Oh good lord. That is just batshit crazy. Stop it now.

Hi there STEELEREDUX...

I'm very sorry; I must owe you several responses to many of your inquiries, the truth is, it's getting much harder to think and to write anything of substance these days.

I've re-read your most recent Emails, including my own, and I can't for the life of me, understand quite what you want me to say, Steele?

I reiterate, I believe any government, even a bi-partisan arrangement, who are foolish enough to outlaw personal F/A ownership, will face serious community unrest. Most reasonable F/A owners, accept and will willingly participate, as they've done; With, mandatory registration and careful screening of all applicants (both mental health, and criminal) to establish their fitness to possess and use a F/A. Any further restrictive processes will not be very well tolerated, and only drive ownership of F/A's underground.

I share this with you, Steele. Some time ago, I joined a particular club that uses larger centrefires as part of their competition. I purchased a used (but immaculate) Ruger, No.1 'Tropical' in .458 calibre which is a single shot. Because I'm on a Military Pension for PTSD, I had to disclose this fact in my application as a mental condition. I was then required to furnish a letter from my Psychiatrist to, accompany my application before they'd even consider me. Fortunately, they believed me to be a fit and proper person to possess and use a F/A.

Since my retirement and my advanced age, I regrettably sold the No.1, as I thoroughly enjoyed dismantling and re-assembling the rifle over time, even though I'd given up shooting.

Steele,

"Oh good lord. That is just batshit crazy. Stop it now."

Why?

Don't you think that Abdul Aziz Wahabzada, to give him his full name, is worthy of the highest recognition of bravery that NZ has to offer?

It takes great guts to face an armed man when one is unarmed, it's bad enough when one is armed, ask O Sung Wu, he's been there, done that!

Dear Is Mise,

You are being a clown again that is why you should stop.

You said that Abdul Aziz Wahabzada has not got his due possibly because he picked up a firearm. That is just inane rubbish being propagated by a gun nut fetisher, you.

Of course you want the argument to then go to having an armed citizenry as part of our culture ignoring the fact that the relatively easy pathway for the shooter to legally arm himself before going on his rampage should mean the NZ government is perfectly within its rights to further restrict gun rights in their own country.

We are not buying into your self defence rationale for spreading your fetish through our culture.

Steele,

"You said that Abdul Aziz Wahabzada has not got his due possibly because he picked up a firearm. That is just inane rubbish being propagated by a gun nut fetisher, you"

I didn't say that at all, but go on with your amateur psychology; I will presume that you would not give Abdul Aziz an award.

Dear Is Mise,

You: “Strangely no one has commented on Abdul Aziz … Perhaps it's because he is a Muslim, or because he picked up a firearm and was prepared to use it against the killer?”

Me: “You said that Abdul Aziz Wahabzada has not got his due possibly because he picked up a firearm.”

You: “I didn't say that at all“

Me: “Pigs arse ya mug.”

Steele,

"You: “Strangely no one has commented on Abdul Aziz … Perhaps it's because he is a Muslim, or because he picked up a firearm and was prepared to use it against the killer?”

Me: “You said that Abdul Aziz Wahabzada has not got his due possibly because he picked up a firearm.”

and I didn't say that at all, you left out all that I said, your selective quotations are on a par with your amateur psychology and your manners.

Hi there STEELEREDUX...

Please understand that I'm not defending IS MISE. He's more than capable of supporting himself.

However, to call this man a 'mug' is pretty well demeaning my friend. Is Mise is a legitimate Australian Veteran. A Veteran of the Korean War. He served with the legendary 3RAR, who secured more battle honours in that conflict than any other Australian Unit, to my knowledge.

Moreover, I've disagreed with him, on several occasions, concerning some issues to do with F/A's. Nevertheless, Steele, he's no 'mug' far from it! He might be misinformed, inaccurate, even wrong. But IS MISE knows more about Firearms than probably anyone else on this Forum.

Post his military career; he was engaged with overhauling and repairing U/S (unservicable) weapons needed for the Vietnam War - No 'mug' would ever be permitted to perform such a role as that, unless he was fully qualified and committed. Soldiers lives depended on the serviceability of those weapons.

So I ask you, Steele, try to avoid calling this Aussie Veteran a 'mug.' Is MISE might be a lot of things to you, Steele, but a 'mug' he's definitely not!

Dear o sung wu,

A person's 'mugness' is definitely in the eye of the beholder it seems.

In Is Mise's case he certainly earned the epitaph on this occasion by saying one thing and then flat out denying it in the next post.

Of course when he postulates “Steele, Are you as stupid as you portray yourself?” he is perfectly within his rights to do so and it isn't something that occupies too much of my thoughts.

So the question then becomes should his military service afford him some dispensation from robust criticism on this forum? I would say to do so would be to treat him like a child. There are a few on here with which I do just that. They are in an incessant tantrum loop and so I find ignoring them a perfectly adequate response.

There are obviously occasions where diffidence to a person's military service is entirely appropriate, just not on an anonymous forum in this small corner of the internet, especially with someone who is quite willing to dish it out when the mood takes them.

But there is one other consideration, how you personally feel about my exchanges with Is Mise. They are obviously cause some discomfort since you have raised it with me on another occasion. It is for that reason I will endevour to moderate my bombast when discussing issues with him.

I should be perfectly clear though, having advanced knowledge about firearms is one thing, having an obvious love of them and the belief they should be propagated throughout our society is another whatever the cost is quite another.

Hi there STEELEREDUX...

A fair answer I guess. I'm just as bad as anyone I guess, whenever people lodge an unfair criticism of coppers. You'll note I did say 'unfair.' The cops past & present have much to answer for, in relation to some of their conduct & responses when dealing with their Bosses (the public). We all have our foibles I suspect; whether a policeman or clergyman?

Anyway, Steele, I'm exhausted with all these shootings, and personally, I'm at a loss, how society should attempt to prevent further massacres of the scale we've seen regularly in the United States, and now the horror that was Christchurch, and Port Arthur. I can only re-emphasize; Steele. Any attempts by any government to completely disarm the public, of the legally owned, and registered F/A's, will be so, at their peril!

Dear o sung wu,

Thanks for the kind words, we armourers always worked by the simple standard of "Would I use this in combat?"

Sometimes we made a difference to the feelings of the troops, the last Battalion to go to Vietnam (I forget which one), all of their SLRs were brought in for 'thorough repair', they were completely rebuilt, reblackened, and at my suggestion, fitted with brand new woodwork.
The Colonel agreed that it might be a bit of a boost to get one's rifle back looking completely new, so he approved and as all the serviceable old wood went into parts for general repairs there were no extra costs involved.

We liked to think that we made a difference.

Hi, there IS MISE...

You made a tremendous difference to the morale of the troops knowing that you folk completely refurbished their SLR's. I reckon things like that made a big difference, knowing Aussie Armourers had their backs. If only the Yank designers had overcome the infernal 'cook-off' with the M.60 mg, all would've been great. Still, a ridiculous notion, given the high rate of fire, of the thing. I can't figure out any other (practical) way to cool the barrel down, other than dropping in the spare.

In Korea, you would've had the Vickers and the Bren? The latter an excellent weapon, but often complained of being too accurate! Thanks again IS MISE, for all the superb work you and your colleagues did for the troops in Vietnam, in fact, the entire ARA.

Hi, o sung wu,

I remember the M60 very well as I repaired the first 10 repaired in Australia they weren't a very reliable gun to start with but over time, with lots of little faults ironed out they became a reliable weapon.
I thought that having the bipod on the barrel was a joke as was the necessity of having the big asbestos glove to hold a hot barrel.

On the Bren, gunners used to keep a worn barrel nut so that they could use that to loosen the barrel and spray their shots a bit more.

The Vickers was an "Old Faithful" itself and many were sad to see it replaced.

We also had .30 Browning MGs as reserves.