rod_bunny said...
I'm anti ill thought out knee-jerk laws that patch previous ill thought out knee-jerk laws that do nothing to target the actual problem.

You have nailed it.

Don't ban guns. Ban pompous, posturing, populist politicians.

rod_bunny said...

log man said...

I think you might be just a wee bit off track with where I was going with that... and reading a bit more into it than I was

dejavue We have been here many times.

Yesterday bumped into someone not seen in few years at IGA Applecross,took all of 5 seconds to bring up you know what.

Like log man,she suffers from condition known as denial,a psychological condition where the person happy with what life has served up,will deny the obvious no matter how much evidence is presented.

log man,keep believing too with what you are 'served up' and you too will have a wonderful life.

denial /de·ni·al/ (dĭ-ni´il) in psychiatry, a defense mechanism in which the existence of unpleasant internal or external realities is kept out of conscious awareness

Nope still have not changed my mind.

Still reckon that it sound like a good idea. More so after every time there is a major shooting in the US.

Guns are for killing .... any other arguments is a smoke screen.

Blame the politicians, but it is interesting that this one is coming from the Right side of politics. Little Johnny was also the one who brought in the gun buyback and restrictions on semi automatics. Would have thought that it would have been a left side bill

It has the support from the broader community and both sides of politics.

Radmac said...

Nope still have not changed my mind.

Still reckon that it sound like a good idea. More so after every time there is a major shooting in the US.

And you believe using the US as an example applicable to us is accurate?

Guns are for killing .... any other arguments is a smoke screen.

I guess you've never watched the Olympics or Commonwealth Games then

Blame the politicians, but it is interesting that this one is coming from the Right side of politics. Little Johnny was also the one who brought in the gun buyback and restrictions on semi automatics. Would have thought that it would have been a left side bill

Incidently, a ban that saw no change in crime trends and cost the Australian shooters many freedoms. Evidence suggests it didn't work as a measure to control crime at all

It has the support from the broader community and both sides of politics.

And this makes it right? I could have an opinion on kite surfing (random topic) and hear someone say that 2 line kites are more dangerous than 4; therefore they should be outlawed

Lachlan, don't we all get limited in our daily lives because of the stupidity/incompetence/****headedness or our fellow citizens. I am a good driver ( no accidents for I don't know how long....licences for motorcycles,car,heavy rigid), yet I'm only allowed to drive the same speed as an 18 year old, no experience, ****ty car, texting while sharing the road etc. Ah well. And another thing, surely we don't expect one law to suddenly end gun crime do we? its like the argument that seatbelts didn't stop road deaths so seatbelts are a waste of time. Aren't there many laws, many technological advancements, many things that go into reducing the road toll. Better cars,lower speed limits, airbags , seat belts, better tyres etc etc. And politically the gun buy back was the best thing Howard ever did. It was gutsy, far sighted, and could only have been done by the conservative side of politics. No, it didn't end criminals getting guns?....no, did it end lovestruck teens shooting themselves or others? .... no. BUT it moved us in the right direction. Thousands of guns were handed in and destroyed, gunsafes became compulsory, and the whole gun owning community was forced to address safety and community standards. Lachlan your same arguments were trotted out back then.

Ah yes, the shooting comitted by someone who did not have a firearms licence, who went off and aquired firearms ie: criminal, For the record he also didn't have a drivers licence either, but that didn't stop him driving. Good example of a mentally unstable criminal ignoring the law. A terrible tragedy.

EDIT: I guess its arguable that it was a step in the right direction. I haven't been able to find any info that the 1996/7 laws have made any difference.

EDIT: I agree, goats are awesome. Doesn't mean I'm not going to eat them though All animals are great in one way or another.

Johnny Howards "buy back" was a big con.
(how do you buy something "back"- if you never owned it in the first place)
The legislation in Western Australia had never been passed- but the govt. and police led the public to believe that if we didnt hand in our legally owned private property by the due date- the police would be knocking on doors to take them.
The W.A. police are still leaning on many of those who refused to voluntarily surrender thier property in the "buyback".

I had to hand in my much loved ruger 10/.22, and an ex US marine corp Ithica 37 shotgun- both were pretty well worn out- both had spare barrels and there were several .22 mags included.
I didnt want to hand them in- and resented being forced to do so (still do)
but at least the payout cheque bought me a pair of 5.56mm and 7.62mm target rifles, reloading gear, several thousand rounds of match grade ammo for each rifle and better commercial grade safes.
since off loaded those rifles- too fancy for me!
There were thousands of antique, historic and heirloom firearms that were needlessly destroyed in the "buyback" here in W.A.

From what I understand- not much was handed in by crims- just scared people being bluffed by the govt. into voluntarily being stripped of thier legally owned property.
Many people do not realise that in W.A. the police have a policy of letting you dump unwanted firearms at a police station for disposal- no questions asked. Of course they would prefer to know the firearms history- but they understand that you might not want the drama, and are happy enough that it is "off the streets"
There is a constant and steady trickle of old, un-needed firearms being disposed of in this way- but these dont get the sort of publicity that is generated by the police finding a firearm in a crims possession.

I have always wondered why a crim can be shot by another crim in a nightclub, and get away with it relatively easily.
There should have been charges (and hopefully convictions) for unlicensed possession of a concealable firearm, posession of a prohibited firearm, unlawfull use, unlawful wounding, discharging a firearm to cause fear, possession of unlicensed ammo, disposing of a firearm unlawfully, concealing evidence- and possibly a heap of other charges.
If I make the slightest mistake with my firearms, Mr Plod would land on me from a great height!

is it a case of criminals operate outside the law- so the law doesnt apply like it does to me?

P.S. little goats are cute, but much more cuterer on a spit

lachlan3556 said...

And you believe using the US as an example applicable to us is accurate?

If there is the possibility of another Port Arthur, yes.

Guns are for killing .... any other arguments is a smoke screen.

I guess you've never watched the Olympics or Commonwealth Games then

It's a very, very, very small % of all guns owners that went to the Olympics, not a useful counter-example. I doubt very much that someone training for the Olympics would have a problem signing those little bits of papers. (Not that I think shooting should be in the Olympics - ridiculous).

Incidently, a ban that saw no change in crime trends (...). Evidence suggests it didn't work as a measure to control crime at all

Stats please. If someone can prove that not a single family (?) gun has made its way to the crims, or that a kid was injured playing with a family gun, then I buy that gun restrictions do not work. Until then, if only one incident can be avoided: worth it.

This link, (Youtube chaps, and Fox which is a bit lamentable, and from the States which makes it even more so), is a great expose of the crap that is being heaped on our shoulders.

I know I know, this is not America, and we can still sell lemonade on the footpath here, (probably cannot if you look into it) but our cafes cannot fill travel mugs owing to hygiene regs.

And guess what, if the creepy suckers ever do achieve their NWO they will lump all the laws together and it will be so restrictive you will have trouble breathing never mind taking a pot shot at tin cans on the farm,

No worries about the pun's. I agree that we need firearms regulation, I see the value of firearms registration and licencing. I just argue that the current ammunition regulations are adequate, and these new changes will not deter crime and over restrict firearms owners.

Currently, you have to have a firearms licence to purchase ammo, and can only purchase ammo for the categories of firearm your licence permits you to own. Personally, I'd be happy to have my details recorded whenever I buy ammo. Restricting someone to buy ammo to suit the exact firearm you own is over the top.

Just like not only banning the so called dangerous semi-auto firearms (centrefire, high capacity), but also including any semi auto rifle or shotgun (ie: 1996 ban). Over the top and un waranted, as the stats now show.

It would just be nice to see some scientific process...

That was a laugh, the author of the original comments was asking for trouble with that. Not sure why he would say it either with just one years worth of data.


Here's a good summary of the flaws with the new legislation, better written than I could anyway (yes its by a shooter, but many of the faults should worry non-shooters alike):

http://www.shootingnews.com.au/Features/Blogs/Jack%20Boswell%20blogs/120302%20ammo%20bill.php




To the supporters out there who haven't yet, we still need more signatures (and your friends)

Im planning on going postal on the old company I worked for.[}:)]
Where do I sign?

lotofwind said...

Im planning on going postal on the old company I worked for.[}:)]
Where do I sign?

Into the closest Police station...

Dawso said...

Mark _australia said...



Not one of the pro (legislation) people has said how this will reduce gun crime.
That is my major issue - it is a giant waste of time and money as it keeps pollies and the police licensing people busy (read, millions of bucks kinda busy) for absolutely no effect.

Umm Thats so obvious it doesn't really need explaining, if it makes it harder for crims to get hold of ammo because retailers will only sell to to people who legally own the gun for the ammo they are purchasing, does it need further explanation?

so ummmm how do the crims get the guns that they need the ammo for?*
Crims dont go buying guns or ammo legitimately to start with... so how does this new legislation affect them?


* I can just imagine the scenario...
Crim: I'd like to buy a gun please.
Store: Certainly what are you using it for? Target? Vermin? Trophy?
Crim: Actually, standover, home invasion, robbery and the odd drive by? [}:)]
Store: Well in that case you want a purchase from our fine selection of the Gangsta Mofo range of pump action sawn offs and full auto handguns.
Crim: Noice, Can I also have some ammo for my mates AK.
Store: Nope.
Crim: