Crazy Bob Katter and his moronic gunfreak mates

Grant says:

12:34pm | 27/10/11

No AdamC - that is a perfectly valid and appropriate turn of phrase in this instance. Exactly what I was thinking. The answer of course is; an impotent male with power issues.

There is NO defence of such a cowardly act, I mean how is it even ‘sporting’? Shoot at each other you morons, we’d be all better off.

Mr A Dad says:

01:17pm | 27/10/11

I dont know @AdamC I reckon most people would agree with her, I sure know I do.

Her statement sums it up perfectly and i cant think of any better way to put it!

Kika says:

01:24pm | 27/10/11

AdamC - he’s a nutty Qlder! We talk loud and slow so you southerners can understand us. haha.

Arnold Layne says:

01:26pm | 27/10/11

I’m with Adam in terms of the language.  I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments that Tory is expressing but the language detracts from her argument.  I also think that using other examples such as his views on sexual orientation & climate change help the argument.  It just serves to lump everyone who has similar beliefs on any of those issues into the same basket.  I’d imagine that there would be many who have “conservative” views on immigration who would still be in favour of tough gun laws. 

I’m not with Adam in terms of the gun laws though.  Restrictive gun laws work.  Responsible gun owners can moan all they like but, if they continue to be responsible, they should have nothing to worry about.  My cousin has a collection of hunting rifles and he keeps them securely locked away etc etc and has no problem complying with the laws because of what he gets in return - the legal right to use them as per the law.  I don’t agree with him having them but I have to concede that he uses them responsibly.

I’m sure Katter would be delighted if we had gun laws like they do in the US, and we all know how that has turned out.

KRS1 says:

01:33pm | 27/10/11

I was honestly just saying this week that I want to taste Giraffe meat… I bet it’s amazing….

Ando says:

01:54pm | 27/10/11

Agreed . I’ve always preferred fuckhead

neo says:

02:08pm | 27/10/11

Katter is the most entertaining pollie we have. The dude is so crazy it’s awesome. Seriously, Bob for PM, the whole country would turn into bedlam.

AdamC says:

02:34pm | 27/10/11

Arnold, you have it right on the language point. It is not so much that Tory’s sentiment is wrong, just that it is tacky and juvenile to write swear words. It may be fine in casual conversation, but not in an a blog post or article by a grown woman who is, presumably, a professional journalist. Having said that, based on many of the comments here, my standards must be abnormally high!

On the gun thing, though, you are wrong. On what basis have you concluded that restrictive gun laws work?

Dan says:

03:04pm | 27/10/11

I admire Tory for that statement and it even made me smile.
(I was thinking similar)

Jo says:

03:33pm | 27/10/11

Tory if ‘anyone who thinks that shooting exotic, rare, beautiful animals is ‘sport’ is a complete fuckwit. ‘
What does shooting common, populous and ugly animals as sport make someone?

gobsmack says:

04:24pm | 27/10/11

@Jo
“What does shooting common, populous and ugly animals as sport make someone?”
I would say a serial killer.

Rachel says:

04:30pm | 27/10/11

Giraffes are exotic and rare in Australia, but in Africa they are common and numerous.
So if the requirement to be a f***wit is shooting rare and exotic animals I would have to conclude that the person in question is not a f***wit. Since the shooting took place in Africa.

Max Redlands says:

05:00pm | 27/10/11

@ Tory “I concede I’m a potty mouth”

Well. as the saying goes, recognizing you have a problem is half the battle.

Honestly Tory, you do yourself and the point you are trying to make a huge dis-service by resorting to such infantile and unedifying language.

Marilyn Shepherd says:

05:05pm | 27/10/11

Actually she is mild.  What sort of fuckwit does shoot a giraffe?

Sam says:

05:25pm | 27/10/11

Tory,

You do realise that the money brought into Africa by trophy hunters creates a financial incentive to preserve the iconic species that we all know.  On top of that the main threat to the survival of many of these species is actually habitat destruction (along with poaching not hunting).  So are the impoverished African family clearing land for crops also fuckwits?

Who do you suggest should pay for the African reserves that protect the wildlife and what do you propose as the non-fuckwit method of culling animals such as elephants (just so we can let the S.African government know).

P.S. I don’t currently have a gun but have hunted for food in the past.  I have never hunted for trophies and do not kill what I don’t intend to eat.

hawker says:

05:54pm | 27/10/11

Hear, hear AdamC.

I too was disappointed with Torie’s inappropriate description of the man in question. I certainly would have chosen a more apt description.

This bloke’s a real c*#t

Chris_D says:

06:41pm | 27/10/11

That comment alone was singularly the best thing Tory has ever written.  Concise, accurate and beautifully delivered.  It made me want to read the whole article.  Keep up the good work Tory.

wearestardust says:

09:52pm | 27/10/11

It’s a fair question.  What kind of fuckwit does shoot a giraffe?  An utter fuckwit, that’s who.

old fart says:

08:05am | 28/10/11

Actually the Hippo kills more people per annum in Africa then Lions, but the question remains, what sort of fuckwit would kill a hippo

Michael says:

08:13am | 28/10/11

The answer is; A Fuckwit with a gun or camera is the kind of fuckwit that’s shoots a Giraffe or Hippo’

paul says:

08:27am | 28/10/11

Personally, I think the word Tory used was way, way, way, too nice. Trouble is no words can properly describe the pornagraphic image displayed above, so I guess fuckwit is as good as it gets.

And as to the people who defend him, the same applies to you.

Little Joe says:

11:05am | 28/10/11

Cries from the ignorant bleeding hearts!!!

While I do not know the means of how or the means in which the animal was shot but I thought that I would throw in my two cents.

African National Parks receive very, very low funding and are defended by amazing people. These rangers protect the wildlife with their lives and many are murdered every year by poachers.

When I lived in Africa, many parks and reserves had shooting programs in which they had lists ...... long lists of people from America and Europe who wanted to shoot a lion, elephant or any wild animal. Deprived as it may seem, this is what these people wanted to do ..... and they are willing to pay lots of money to do it!!!! So when a ranger sees a dieing bull elephant or a fatally injured lion or lame giraffe or the park is overpopulated by a species, they get on the phone and invite these deprived individuals to come and kill the animals. This was done as humanely as possible. The money raised by these programs went to paying rangers, protecting species and educational programs.

As stated I do not know the manner in which this photograph was taken, but if it was taken through one of these programs ...... I would support it. I know that many others would rather this not occur. They would rather see animals die slow and natural deaths. But these ‘others’ may not lived in Africa and know the real and desperate poverty that exists in this world.

And I would also say this ..... if you do not want these programs to occur you are free to travel to Africa, pick up a gun and take up a post. I wish you well!!!

My FooI Ideas ..... ‘7,000,000,000 People’ and ‘A Pristine Environment is not always the Best Environment’ now come to mind.

Little Joe says:

11:05am | 28/10/11

Cries from the ignorant bleeding hearts!!!

While I do not know the means of how or the means in which the animal was shot but I thought that I would throw in my two cents.

African National Parks receive very, very low funding and are defended by amazing people. These rangers protect the wildlife with their lives and many are murdered every year by poachers.

When I lived in Africa, many parks and reserves had shooting programs in which they had lists ...... long lists of people from America and Europe who wanted to shoot a lion, elephant or any wild animal. Deprived as it may seem, this is what these people wanted to do ..... and they are willing to pay lots of money to do it!!!! So when a ranger sees a dieing bull elephant or a fatally injured lion or lame giraffe or the park is overpopulated by a species, they get on the phone and invite these deprived individuals to come and kill the animals. This was done as humanely as possible. The money raised by these programs went to paying rangers, protecting species and educational programs.

As stated I do not know the manner in which this photograph was taken, but if it was taken through one of these programs ...... I would support it. I know that many others would rather this not occur. They would rather see animals die slow and natural deaths. But these ‘others’ may not lived in Africa and know the real and desperate poverty that exists in this world.

And I would also say this ..... if you do not want these programs to occur you are free to travel to Africa, pick up a gun and take up a post. I wish you well!!!

My FooI Ideas ..... ‘7,000,000,000 People’ and ‘A Pristine Environment is not always the Best Environment’ now come to mind.

Little Joe says:

11:05am | 28/10/11

Cries from the ignorant bleeding hearts!!!

While I do not know the means of how or the means in which the animal was shot but I thought that I would throw in my two cents.

African National Parks receive very, very low funding and are defended by amazing people. These rangers protect the wildlife with their lives and many are murdered every year by poachers.

When I lived in Africa, many parks and reserves had shooting programs in which they had lists ...... long lists of people from America and Europe who wanted to shoot a lion, elephant or any wild animal. Deprived as it may seem, this is what these people wanted to do ..... and they are willing to pay lots of money to do it!!!! So when a ranger sees a dieing bull elephant or a fatally injured lion or lame giraffe or the park is overpopulated by a species, they get on the phone and invite these deprived individuals to come and kill the animals. This was done as humanely as possible. The money raised by these programs went to paying rangers, protecting species and educational programs.

As stated I do not know the manner in which this photograph was taken, but if it was taken through one of these programs ...... I would support it. I know that many others would rather this not occur. They would rather see animals die slow and natural deaths. But these ‘others’ may not lived in Africa and know the real and desperate poverty that exists in this world.

And I would also say this ..... if you do not want these programs to occur you are free to travel to Africa, pick up a gun and take up a post. I wish you well!!!

My FooI Ideas ..... ‘7,000,000,000 People’ and ‘A Pristine Environment is not always the Best Environment’ now come to mind.

Maurie says:

11:13am | 28/10/11

Am feeling left out, living in OZ where we don’t have such wild, beautiful, exotic animals to kill for fun. 

I’ve decided to stock my 20 acres with bulls, calves, lambs, goats, little pink piggies and a few fluffy alpacas for some “exoticness” and then wipe them all out in one afternoon with a few mates.

And then - what a BBQ!!

colroe says:

11:17am | 28/10/11

I agree with Tory.  What a dick, he must be a really tough guy to shoot a giraffe.  I thought this type of person had gone from the planet but evidently not.    Never mind, when Katter gets a fair percentage of the vote, courtesy of the worst government and opposition in Qlds history, we can all go out on safari, might even be able to bag a koala for my trophy cabinet.

Brizben says:

04:05pm | 28/10/11

“What kind of fuckwit shoots a giraffe? “

Were my exact thoughts when I saw the picture.

Rase says:

03:50pm | 18/01/12

He is angry because his lifestyle has been outlawed by the federal government and Liberal Party since 1996-.

Briz_Bite says:

12:47pm | 27/10/11

You, sir, have won a prize for the best ever comment on The Punch. Hands down.

Another Chris says:

12:53pm | 27/10/11

I second the motion Briz_Bite. Pure Win.

Misanthrope says:

01:11pm | 27/10/11

I’m actually ashamed that I know what this is a reference to.

tom says:

01:16pm | 27/10/11

the best. ever. comment. amazing.

Homer J says:

01:34pm | 27/10/11

I dont get it??

Dan says:

01:50pm | 27/10/11

Your all Gen Y Pokemon losers !!
(Gen X rules)

SimpleSimon says:

02:45pm | 27/10/11

Bahaha!!

Tchom says:

04:59pm | 27/10/11

You spot a WILD ONYX.
GO David Auger.
David Auger uses RIFLE.
It’s super effective.
WILD ONYX has fainted.

Malohi says:

06:41pm | 27/10/11

@Tchom

... probably should have used HARDEN.

paul says:

08:30am | 28/10/11

We had guns stored safely in our house. My brother still managed to kill himself in an accident. No gun is safe. Nuff said.

Burko says:

10:49am | 28/10/11

@ Paul, Sorry for your loss, it must be devastating to lose a brother, I would be if I lost mine, but, by your discription I would say that the firearm that was the cause of your brothers death wasnt stored safely.
The firearm must have been out of its safe, if stored in NSW, must have had the bolt in, assuming it was a repeating rifle, a round chambered and action cycled the saftey in “fire” position and more than likely was being handled poorly. All those action in the home envrionment could be considered unsafe. None of the rifle I have stored on my property are by themselves unsafe, it is poor operation that makes them this way.

paul says:

12:03pm | 28/10/11

@ Burko, don’t dare tell me you feel sorry and then lecture me. There is no such thing as a safe firearm, they are designed to do damage. All this crap about safe storage, safe useage, safety’s on and all the other shit is just that, shit. People who have guns are inherently dangerous because guns are dangerous. And if people feel the need to go and shoot things, whether it be targets, animals or humans than they have real problems. As I said, nuff said because any argument to the contrary is plain BS!

Waz says:

01:22pm | 28/10/11

@ paul

Pull your head in.  You come into a discussion playing the “woe-is-me” card and then reject the empathy shown to you. Very poor form.

What your family suffered was indeed a tragedy. But blaming the gun is like blaming the car when someone is killed in a car crash.

Guns are not designed to do damage. The are designed to cause a chemical reaction to accelerate and eject a projectile. That is all they do. Where that projectile goes is the responsibility of the operator.

paul says:

01:41pm | 28/10/11

@ Waz “Guns are not designed to do damage. The are designed to cause a chemical reaction to accelerate and eject a projectile. That is all they do. Where that projectile goes is the responsibility of the operator.”

What a load of BS. So what you are trying to tell me is that guns are nothing more than a platform to fire a rocket. Double BS. They were designed for one purpose and one purpose only - to do harm. To deny otherwise is sophistry of the highest order. When you fire a gun you do not do so to send a bullet into the ether at speed. You do so to commit damage. Oh, no I forgot, you only use blanks. Silly me. Of course you bloody don’t!

Of course, this is all a freedom to bear arms issue with people who should not have that freedom. No one needs a gun unless in the military of police. No one.  Full stop. There is no sport in shooting an animal, no sport in aiming at a target and certainly no sport in using it to kill someone. And stop trying to pretend otherwise.

And BTW I was not after sympathy, I was stating a fact. The grieving I did was a long time ago. If you want give sympathy, save it for the people who will be shot this year by morons who carry implements that cause a chemical reaction that accelerate and eject a projectile. I am sure they will be happy to know that.

Burko says:

02:10pm | 28/10/11

I was just stating facts Paul. Sorry if you though I was lecturing as this wasnt my intent, but my points are still valid. A safely stored, unloaded firearm is not dangerous.
  By your reasoning all Police, soldiers, most vets, security guards and farmers are inherently dangerous and have real problems. I understand that blameshifting in a situation such as yours can ease your pain, but I think that calling people, who enjoy shooting which last time I checked was still legal and heavily regulated, a little excessive.

Waz says:

02:55pm | 28/10/11

@ paul

Talk about BS; you’ve got it flowing thick and fast.

So in your mind, cars are responible for the road toll, cutlery is responsible for obesity, and keyboards are responsible for spelling mistakes.

Just FYI, (so you can appear slightly less ignorant in future) guns don’t fire rockets. Rockets are self propelled; the projectiles from guns are not.

When I use a gun, it is a tool I use to get a projectile to a destination. I am responsible for where that profectile goes and what it does. The gun is not.

This is a standard argument from the anti-gun brigade - assigning abilities to the inert object.

decko says:

10:51pm | 02/11/11

eh, actually guns are designed to kill things, that’s what they were invented for. Cars were invented to help people travel faster and make travel more efficient, a sad consequence is the death of someone in an automobile. Guns were invented to enable things to make killing more efficient

Ol'Wobbly says:

12:40pm | 27/10/11

The issues are as follows:
1. What possible “good purposes” could there be?
2. Regardless whether guns are “stored safely” or not, there will come a day when kids will get hold of them, with possibly tragic consequences
3. If there are no guns in private hands there will be no gun violence or gun crime

I’m sure others can think of other “issues”.

Horns Up says:

12:41pm | 27/10/11

Ummm because quite often guns aren’t used for “good purposes”.

\m/

St. Michael says:

12:53pm | 27/10/11

Probably that the guns usually don’t wind up (a) stored safely or (b) used for good purposes because (c) criminals tend to burgle houses while people are away, (d) as a result have a decent amount of time to overcome (a) and thus (e) end up having firearms around their own houses.

Hope bob wins says:

12:56pm | 27/10/11

Oll wobbly you are an idiot. Private firearms ownage does not lead to firearms crime. Registered firearms are used in less then .02% of crime (these stats are on the australian criminology institutes webpage for one and all too see), My kids know where my firearms are and they know they are not to even try to access them without me being there. as for good purpose I provide meat for my table and i target shoot.

hot tub political machine says:

01:03pm | 27/10/11

Nails head and hammers repliers

Sara says:

01:06pm | 27/10/11

Apparently self defence isn’t a good purpose. These dullards would prefer you to be a victim in your own home than to defend yourself lol.

Elizabeth says:

01:07pm | 27/10/11

What are the good purposes of firearms?

Elizabeth says:

01:07pm | 27/10/11

What are the good purposes of firearms?

RyaN says:

01:20pm | 27/10/11

Ol’Wobbly: “3. If there are no guns in private hands there will be no gun violence or gun crime” so the ever increasing gun crime we see today in Australia is due to legal weapons?
Well I never!

Fact is that if the citizens aren’t armed, the commies know they can walk in and take over and the citizens can do nothing.

Jet says:

01:22pm | 27/10/11

Ol’Wobbly
1. Some people like to go down the firing range and have a shot.
2. “Stored safely” in Australia means in a gun safe. I don’t know any kids that can crack a gun safe.
3. You’ll never get illegal firearms off the streets and out of criminal hands even if you ban them altogether.

St Michael - do you have any stats on firearms being stolen from private houses to backup your claims.

Elizabeth - as I already said some people like to relax down the firing range and let off a few shots. These people aren’t criminals or doing anything wrong if they are licensed.

Disclaimer - I don’t support the shooting of animals for sport.

Horns Up says:

01:31pm | 27/10/11

@sara

“Apparently self defence isn’t a good purpose. These dullards would prefer you to be a victim in your own home than to defend yourself lol. “

And what kind of “dullard” assumes that only the good guys have guns if they’re legal? Or that the bad guys decide to leave their legal guns at home or that that the bad guys are less inclined to bring their guns to break into a house where the owner is likely armed?

That’s very special logic right there.

\m/

RyaN says:

01:50pm | 27/10/11

@Horns Up: but in NSW you can be sure that the cops will make up for it, shooting your children in the stomach in your own home!

St. Michael says:

02:08pm | 27/10/11

@ Jet:

“St Michael - do you have any stats on firearms being stolen from private houses to backup your claims.”

In Australia it’s minimal, mainly because there isn’t a large body of guns in the population.  That’s because of the ban.

In America, where there is a large body of guns in the population and which should serve as an object lesson on this, it’s a far different story.  Read here: http://www.firearmsid.com/Feature Articles/0900GUIC/Guns Used in Crime.htm

Thanks for playing.

Horns Up says:

02:13pm | 27/10/11

@RyaN - Are seriously silly enough to suggest that the NSW Police are child murders on the basis of one incident? Just so that you can make a very weak point in favour of relaxing gun control.

Hey Sara we have a new definition of “dullard”, RyaN can you send in a picture please?

\m/

gobsmack says:

02:27pm | 27/10/11

Of course you need guns lying around the house.  You never know when a giraffe or an onyx might come stampeding in.

Waz says:

02:34pm | 27/10/11

@St Michael

The game’s not over yet mate. If you want to compare stats from the US, the anti-gunners are going to lose every time.

Here’s some homework for you. Compare the crime stats from 2 states in the same geographical location, similar population, but different gun laws. (I’ll give you a hint: Washington DC and Vermont have gun laws at the opposites ends of the spectrum.)

That’s check. (Check-mate in two moves;-)

Waz says:

02:36pm | 27/10/11

@St Michael

The game’s not over yet mate. If you want to compare stats from the US, the anti-gunners are going to lose every time.

Here’s some homework for you. Compare the crime stats from 2 states in the same geographical location, similar population, but different gun laws. (I’ll give you a hint: Washington DC and Vermont have gun laws at the opposites ends of the spectrum.)

That’s check. (Check-mate in two moves;-)

Sara says:

02:42pm | 27/10/11

Horns Up, what kind of dullard assumes that banning guns will see criminals handing in theirs? The criminals do take their guns to robberies/home invasions, that’s why they get them in the first place lol

Jet says:

02:57pm | 27/10/11

St Michael | The is no ban on guns on Australia - householders can own guns as long as they can get a permit.

There’s more guns per head of population in Canada without the same amount of gun crime - your logic doesn’t hold.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada#Statistics_Canada_data

“In America, where there is a large body of guns in the population and which should serve as an object lesson on this, it’s a far different story.”

And St Michael, no-one is saying we should have the same gun laws as in the US so this argument doesn’t hold either. You’re choosing an extreme example to try and prove your point. Its a nonsense.

neo says:

03:15pm | 27/10/11

Target shooing is a great purpose, love it!

Pity we can’t get assault rifles any more :’(

RyaN says:

03:21pm | 27/10/11

@Horns Up: But apparently you anti-gun people are happy to make laws based on one incident. Hypocrite much?
As for the rest of your pathetic ad-hom, I find you mildly amusing to be quite honest.

St. Michael says:

04:24pm | 27/10/11

@ Waz: I’ll go look into it.

@ Jet: “St Michael | The is no ban on guns on Australia - householders can own guns as long as they can get a permit.  There’s more guns per head of population in Canada without the same amount of gun crime - your logic doesn’t hold.”

Are you talking gun crime per head of population, or just a flat comparison of incidents of gun crime? If it’s the latter, then of course I would expect less gun crime in Canada than the US because the US has a massive population compared to Canada.

To me the more interesting stat, if you’re comparing Australia with Canada, is that 30% of all murders in Canada were committed using a gun.  In Australia the stat is far, far less than that.  And from the look of it, Australia has much more restrictive gun controls than Canada does.

So the exact question is: what do the shooters want opened up? If you have a genuine need for a weapon, what’s the problem with the laws as they are?

Horns Up says:

07:35pm | 27/10/11

@Sara - the fact is we have a relatively low rate of gun crime. Making guns more accessible will not see that figure lower.

@RyaN - as ever you make little to no sense….well except for the bit where you point out how funny I am, on that score you were spot on.

\m/

marley says:

08:03pm | 27/10/11

Guys - Canada has far tougher gun laws than the US.  While it’s still relatively easy to get a long gun,  all handguns are either totally prohibited or restricted, with tough licencing requirements.  Automatic weapons are prohibited.  The Canadian Border Service makes a fortune fining Americans bringing weapons into the country without permits.

So, much tougher gun laws north of the border.  And, surprise suprise, much lower violent crime rates, including much lower homicide rates.  The lack of weaponry in the home doesn’t seem to result in higher numbers of home invasions or other forms of violent crime than would be the case in the US.

Canada’s homicide rate last year was 1.62 per 100,000.  That compares with the US rate of 4.8. The Australian rate in 2008 (last figure I could find) was 1.2.  About 12% of murders in Australia are committed with guns;  the figure for Canada is 32% and for the US a whopping 67%. 

I wouldn’t want to be changing Australia’s gun laws anytime soon.

RyaN says:

08:51pm | 27/10/11

@Horns Up: I am not surprised you don’t understand.

Horns Up says:

12:25am | 28/10/11

@RyaN - Neither am I, you never make much sense.

\m/

old fart says:

07:56am | 28/10/11

“Oll wobbly you are an idiot. Private firearms ownage does not lead to firearms crime.”
Tell that to the 70yo firearms owner who had to fight of a couple of crims last week when they were trying to steal his privately owned firearms
@ tory"Federal MP Bob Katter is a throw-back nutjob bunker-mentality troglodyte”
Well done tory, not an apostrophe in sight   you missed that he played the banjo

Waz says:

09:26am | 28/10/11

@ Marley,

You’re a bit loose with the truth there regarding Canadian gun laws. Resrticted means legal to own if registered.

Handguns are restricted, you can possess a handgun with a barrel length >105mm,  and not .25 or .32, with no other checks. This is much less strict than Oz.

Semi-autos are only restricted not prohibited. It is only some types and high capacity magazines that are prohibited. This is much less strict than Oz.

There are no range participation or storage requirements. This is much less strict than Oz.

Even with the laws they have, the are abolishing registraion for longarms because it is a huge waste of money with absolutely no benefit.

RyaN says:

10:19am | 28/10/11

@Horns Up: Apparently you never do, like I said, unsurprising.

Horns Up says:

11:54am | 28/10/11

Um I’m not the one who was silly enough to call the police child killers.

\m/

RyaN says:

01:25pm | 28/10/11

@Horns Up: oh god here we go again, just like James1. Ok mate, how about you post my exact words where I call police “child killers”.

Jet says:

01:34pm | 28/10/11

St Michael | “So the exact question is: what do the shooters want opened up? If you have a genuine need for a weapon, what’s the problem with the laws as they are?”

I never said I there was anything wrong with the gun laws as they stand in Australia. I’m replying to your misinformation regarding current gun owners.

marley says:

01:49pm | 28/10/11

@Waz - I wasn’t loose with the truth at all.  All guns in Canada have to be registered - and all handguns fall within the restricted or prohibited categories.  That is entirely accurate. 

So is my argument that it’s much tougher to get a firearms licence in Canada than the US - there’s a waiting period, you have to pass a safety course, etc.  I never suggested the rules there are tougher than in Australia, but they certainly are much tougher than in the US.  And the crime rates of the two countries reflect the lesser availability of firearms north of the border. 

As for the long gun registry, well, it was always likely that a Conservative government would want to abolish it.  Even if it had been efficiently operated (which it wasn’t) the conservative heartland would have wanted to see the back of that registry.

None of this negates the fact that gun crime in Canada (and violent crime in general) is well below American levels.

James1 says:

02:15pm | 28/10/11

Voila, RyaN:

“but in NSW you can be sure that the cops will make up for it, shooting your children in the stomach in your own home!”

You may not have called them child killers, but you certainly called them child shooters-in-the-stomach.  That’s pretty close in my book. 

I should note for you as well, as you seem to have a different understand of the word majority, 95% of the population of Rhodesia was black.  Thus the majority was black, therefore black majority rule in Rhodesia is the same as real democracy because the overwhelming majority was black.  Given this, I apologise for getting on your back about your comments regarding Fraser - it seems they stemmed from a lack of knowledge on your part of both the majoritarian, universal nature of true democracies and the ethnic makeup of your home country.  I hope this has cleared that up.

Horns Up says:

03:09pm | 28/10/11

“but in NSW you can be sure that the cops will make up for it, shooting your children in the stomach in your own home! “

And you’re accusing police of what here? You’re a bit silly aren’t you?

\m/

RyaN says:

03:11pm | 28/10/11

@James1: A representative government does not specify that a person must be of a specific race. Hence Fraser specifying that the government not be representative of the people and instead representative of a specific group of people based on the colour of their skin is and always will be racist.

As for the shooting in the stomach, the kid survived so hence there is no way that they can be labelled a “child killer” on that event.

Replying to you gets more ridiculous every time I do it. Worst of all I feel all dirty about being trolled by you yet again, I just can’t help myself though. I am so ashamed!

Waz says:

03:21pm | 28/10/11

@ marley

As I’ve said before, you’re painting with a pretty thick brush when quoting US national stats. Here’s a couple for you to mull over when talking gun laws.

DC has a similar population and is in a similar geographic location to VT.

VT has almost no gun laws(you need to be 18 to buy a gun); DC has the strictest on the US mainland. In 2010 VT had a murder rate of 1.1, DC had a murder rate of 21.9.

More guns = less crime.

<www.disastercenter.com/crime/vtcrime.htm>
<www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm>

Horns Up says:

03:34pm | 28/10/11

Oh so you’re claiming that we should relax gun control laws because police continue to shoot our children in our homes. But not to kill them, obviously, maybe to teach them a lesson?

There’s no getting away from it Ryan even by your standards that was pretty stupid comment.

\m/

James1 says:

03:56pm | 28/10/11

Sorry to do that to you RyaN.  I am just trying really hard to work out why you think advocating the idea of “one person, one vote” is racist.  After all, the 5% of Rhodesia that was white voted in the elections that brought Mugabe to power.  Their candidates just didn’t win, because they didn’t get enough votes.

“A representative government does not specify that a person must be of a specific race.”

Good.  I’m glad we agree.  Further, I’m glad you agree with Fraser on this, and further I assume you agree with myself and Fraser that if every person has one vote each of equal value, and the majority elects a black government, we have the very definition of a democratic outcome. After all, a majoritarian system (in which one has majority rule) refers to voting, not the makeup of the government.  I note that Australia’s government is almost entirely white, and was elected by a majority white population.  Do you think this is racist? 

I guess you must have been taught about the nature of democracy while you grew up under Ian Smith - democracy, Africa style.  Your ideas on it are odd from an Australian perspective.  Don’t be fooled by the anti-black propaganda you were subjected to while you lived there.

marley says:

06:45pm | 28/10/11

@Waz - so you’re comparing Washington DC, an entirely urban area, with a rural state like Vermont?  And you accuse me of selective argument?  Why don’t you compare like with like.  Seattle - homicide rate 2.3 Vancouver 1.5.  New York City 4.7 Toronto 1.4 Boston 3.5 Halifax 2.7

Daemon says:

11:29am | 30/10/11

Some months ago, there was an uproard after some dopey cow beefed about an ad on a bus stop, that showed two chaps (who had been together for 28 years BTW), in a loving moment. I can’t even remember what it was advertising in fact. Within half an hour, the people responsible for advertising standards, had 30 complaints and the sign was forced down.

The people who paid for the poster then went after the facts, and discovered, surprise surprise, that the original dumb cow, was a member of some crazy right-wing church, and she called all her buddies and had them make the same complaint. This was outside the guidelines, as it amounts to one complaint.

Now I have been reading this for several minutes and am seeing a sort of focus, best described as pro-gun, anti-nanny state (which I sort of agree with-anti nanny, not pro guns), and goodness me, is it fair to say that you guys n gals from “out west” have a phone tree?

“Hello Chris, it’s Dave. Those lefty bastards on Punch are having a go at our next “leader”. Can you call Marj and Joanie and Steve and Griff and Burko and get them to get in and write something so those commie pricks think there are more of us than they knew. Also don’t call bob, he can’t spell and that would make it look like a bunch of hill-billies”. Oh, and don’t forget the barbie at Bob’s next weekend. I killed an Oryx so we have some exotic meat, but Jim-Bob is bringing a haunch of Giraffe and a leg of one of those big grey things he shoots. Yes- Hippo, that’s it. See ya pal”

So, Tory tells Story.
Dave tells Burko
Burko tells Marj
Marj tells Joan
and someone puts a sign up at the gun exchange.

Fuck Wits. All of you. Congratulations on only picking those few among you who can spell, and sound as though you are sober, and thoughtful.

There. It’s done

Waz says:

03:20pm | 31/10/11

@marley

I’m not sure what happened to my last post… vanished into the ether.

It was awesome. You should have read it. It went along the lines of the following but was much better written and would have turned your whole viewpoint.

So you are saying that the gun-toting rednecks from the rural state are 20 times less likely to kill each other than the sophisticated urbanites? It’s interesting how we don’t experience that much of a difference between our rural areas and urban centres when our gun laws are consistant.

No, the difference here is that gun ownership is expected in one area and banned. And the the statistics for all other types of crime reflect this trend as well.

bella starkey says:

12:32pm | 27/10/11

Watch Louis Theroux’s show on game hunting on South African game reseves. If you can afford it, they will get an animal for you to shoot. No actual hunting involved, just target practise really.

Paul Murray says:

02:47pm | 27/10/11

Introducing kangaroos into Africa. Oh, it’s wrong, but it would be awesome.

Horns Up says:

12:53pm | 27/10/11

That you couldn’t come up with a sensible criticism, I am disappoint too.

\m/

Rule, Britannia? says:

12:55pm | 27/10/11

Yeah!

Especially compared to the stereotyped, moronic drivel about men’s rights, the Islamisation of Australia, and those dirty boat people.

Erick, if you have a response or contribution to the debate, make it. Otherwise keep your whinging, moaning, and bitching to a minimum.

As you were!

James1 says:

01:58pm | 27/10/11

Indeed Erick.  Of all the areas where Mr Katter falls short, these seem the least to me.  An article on his economic illiteracy, sorry, I mean policies, would have been far more insightful and relevant.

Ghost says:

03:58pm | 27/10/11

Again, Tory, as I pointed out, you haven’t established who Mr Auger is, his relevance to the story and his connection with Bob Katter?

Erick says:

04:03pm | 27/10/11

@Tory - I speak of the gun-toting, shoot-everything gap-toothed country boy stereotype which defines this article. It’s easy to call on all those tropes, and get the right reaction from the limp-wristed, latte-sipping elitist vegan masturbators of the inner city. But it doesn’t lead to understanding or serious discussion.

Dave says:

04:30pm | 27/10/11

Erick, Im ex army, parachute qualified, with extensive experience of all types of firearms and other things that go bang. Im no inner city latte drinker. I grew up on a farm and owned rifles and target rifles as a kid. I know a lot of farmers who own rifles. I dont know any of them who shoot large helpless animals in Africa and I know a lot who only reluctantly pull their rifles out to put down a sick or injured animal. Thats responsible firearm ownership. These guys who you are poorly attempting to defend are fuckheads. Nothing more and nothing less. I have further opinions on that subject but theyre not printable.
You can go back to your latte now.

paul says:

08:35am | 28/10/11

@ Erick “It’s easy to call on all those tropes, and get the right reaction from the limp-wristed, latte-sipping elitist vegan masturbators of the inner city.”

I am not limp wristed, I hate latte, I eat meat and I am as far from elite as it can be possible. Hey, four out five ain’t bad.

And you still haven’t told me what you definition of “elitist” is? Is that because you can’t read a dictionary?

Chad C Mulligan says:

08:56am | 28/10/11

Dave - Absolutely Goddamned Right.  I did eight years with a wide range of bang-sticks thanks to Elizabeth R.  I’ve never met a single civilian who exhibited anything like an acceptable level of firearms safety.  Most just seem to want to act tough and collect weapons as some sort of penis substitute.

palone says:

11:03am | 28/10/11

Erick, relax. It was a female giraffe, you nitwit. Stop trying to score own goals. Don’t you know that the male giraffes carry guns, and might fight back, so the macho-mob go for the girls. A bit like you.

Anne71 says:

12:39pm | 28/10/11

Dave and Chad C Mulligan - totally agree. My dad was a Royal Navy commando and a trained sniper, and he loathed the very idea of hunting for “sport”. He often used to say that he wondered how brave those hunters would be if their prey was armed and able to fight back.
He had no problem with people who hunted for food, though, since they usually only take what they need and don’t just go out there blasting at anything that moves.

Daemon says:

11:41am | 30/10/11

Dearest Ghost…

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/cowboys-calling-the-shots-for-bob-katters-party/story-fn59niix-1226177792065

Horns Up says:

07:38pm | 27/10/11

After that what next? Might I suggest a troll?

\m/

fml says:

02:52pm | 27/10/11

Are you seriously comparing guns to cars?

The sole purpose of one is to kill, the other is to provide cheap and affordable transport.

MarkS says:

03:02pm | 27/10/11

I don’t like Cars, I have not ever owned a car & cannot drive. Cars kill, cars kill more people in Australia then guns. I like guns, I like target shooting. It is fun & nobody is hurt. So ban cars, do not ban guns.

“gun-toting redneck heartless bastards with a slimy’  Reasonable debate, I think not.

As for shooting a Giraffe. Ever heard of culling? National Park or Wild Life park etc has too many large animals. Somebody is willing to pay lots of money to shoot one. The conservation of the large animals is improved with the money obtained. It is called Win Win

RyaN says:

03:25pm | 27/10/11

@fml: Well look at it this way, I guess you will just have to sit and watch your horse suffer and die if its fatally injured, perhaps you can use your hands?

Louisa says:

03:36pm | 27/10/11

MarkS

The world is overpopulated wih people - should we shot the excess.

fml says:

03:41pm | 27/10/11

Ryan,

I have a car. I dont own a horse.

sandra says:

09:23pm | 27/10/11

She is not talking about tobacco , alcahol, land developers etc——if you want to discuss that, wait for the article on it or post one yourself.The topic is about one issue—the character of those in mad Katters party—and it is awesome writting as it echoes my exact thoughts when I saw this in the Australian-thanks Tory—the language is the perfect!!

MarkS says:

11:37am | 28/10/11

@Louisa
It is both illegal & immoral to shoot people becouse we cannot feed them all

It is both illegal & immoral not to shot animals if we cannot fed them all

The moral of this is that except for in childrens books people are not animals and animals are not people.

jf says:

01:28pm | 27/10/11

“He is driven by his own judgement and not others, “

Just like Colonel Gaddafi.

hot tub political machine says:

12:53pm | 27/10/11

Its coming right at us!

RyaN says:

10:21am | 28/10/11

@Horns Up: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/12/south-african-woman-kille_n_573223.html
Not that I approve of killing giraffes or hunting in any form for that matter.

Horns Up says:

11:51am | 28/10/11

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-171166/Woman-killed-bus-crash-tragedy.html

I don’t like buses either, but I wouldn’t shoot one.

\m/

RyaN says:

03:16pm | 28/10/11

Yeah me either but I was just allying your fears on wild animals being vicious, ALL wild animals can be vicious, not that its a reason to shoot them.

Horns Up says:

03:41pm | 28/10/11

Did you read the article?

The woman was with dogs that went at the giraffe. She then got between the animals and copped a kick to the neck.

Giraffe’s are not “vicious animals” and one accident doesn’t change that.

You are correct though shooting animals for sport is the wrong and IMO the act of a real coward.

\m/

seniorcynic says:

01:13pm | 27/10/11

Good on you Keith, I am a licensed shooter and conservationist. I shoot feral animals (foxes) and euthanase roos with broken legs that have been struck by trucks. I have a permit to do this. Personally I would never shoot a native animal for sport but I don’t condemn those who do. The gun buyback resulted in a wide choice of used firearms at reasonable prices but the media didn’t pick up on that.

Seanr says:

03:38pm | 27/10/11

“if you want to write a piece defending the shooting of exotic animals” ICB, this wasn’t a piece about shooting exotic animals, this was an attack job on Bob Katter. Otherwise why mention him, he certainly didn’t shoot the giraffe in the picture.

I’m not even a Katter fan, due to his economic and other policies but this article was such a hatchet job I had to respond.

Mr A Dad says:

03:46pm | 27/10/11

Yeah you go Keith, defend a bloke with a high powered rifle driving in an open top four wheel drive, shooting a 9 metre high giraffe that was more then likely just standing there or lumbering along.

Then we too can abolish you as a Fuckwit!!!!!

Nice challenge Tory!

fml says:

04:15pm | 27/10/11

Hmmmm killing animals for sport is an acceptable, mature and relevant hobby, yet using cuss words, is immature.

I hope you don’t swear when you are shooting that giraffe.

Dave says:

08:09pm | 27/10/11

Well, you could take up weights and martial arts if youre that concerned about your family’s safety. Then youd be confident that you could deal with anyone crashing in your window in the incredibly unlikely event that that happens. 
The real problem here is that youre a lazy bastard who’s not willing to do some work to defend his family from all those rampaging house invaders out there. Id recommend a shovel: easy to use, deadly at close quarters, and perfectly legal. Just leave it in your laundry and you have a defence system few could beat. Oh yeah, and go to the gym because judging by your comment youre obviously a puny nerd who cant fight and you might have some trouble swinging that shovel.

Daemon says:

11:51am | 30/10/11

Or you could move there.

Generally the focus on self-preservation here has been about the right to defend oneself against intruders. Since most intruders are druggies (not all I grant, just most), a rolling pin would be a perfect weapon for defence against them.

redvixen says:

01:18pm | 27/10/11

I saw a really good documentary a couple of years ago about the big game parks and the people, mostly Americans, who pay to go there to shoot the animals.  (They call it hunting, but sitting in a hide waiting for an animal to come for its afternoon drink of water does not fit my description of hunting).  And while I, personally, cannot understand how people can shoot animals for ‘fun’ the owners of the park made the point, and the journalist later found it out to be true, that the animals were all given to the staff and the locals for meat for their families.

WayneT says:

03:21pm | 27/10/11

The money goes back into breeding and conservation programs that the local government doesn’t fund.  There are breeds that are flourishing from the so called ‘blood money’ paid by hunters, that otherwise wouldn’t be.  How is shooting a supposedly helpless animal any different to the hundreds of thousands of helpless animals we slaughter here in Australia for our dinner tables?  Is it because the humble chicken or cow isn’t as glamorous as a Giraffe?  The local natives have been hunting these big game for many years.  Stop applying your western values and sentimentality to the issue Tory.  Instead how about concentrating your efforts on the 1500 Australians killed on our roads every year, or aren’t they as cuddly as a Giraffe?

Lucy says:

01:04pm | 27/10/11

Agreed!  Katter and his gun-toting redneck cronies are an embarrassment.

Trapper says:

01:04pm | 27/10/11

Vashti you show the worst of humans the same as the punch responders that you claim to be better then. Calling someone a redneck because they have different views then yours is just as bad as your average punch reader. They are not saying make them able to be had from kmart in any way. However I ask you why I as a law abiding person who has never once broken the law been punished for what 1 nut job did? I am treated like a criminal including being on a national database beside pedophiles and murders because I choose to participate in a hobby. as for the giraffe, learn to do some research and read up on the hunting of these animals legally.

Jet says:

01:28pm | 27/10/11

vashti | So to prove your point you take the hysterical, extreme view. No-one is saying guns should be available in K-Mart. Please don’t succumb to posting here again.

Seanr says:

02:36pm | 27/10/11

This comment is unintentionally ironic for the reasons Trapper points out.

SimpleSimon says:

02:58pm | 27/10/11

I expect Vashti’s comment about buying them in Kmart is in reference to the US, where you can buy guns at Walmart. I remember the first time I went to a Walmart Superstore - was an eye opener!

@Trapper - I’m on a national database because I have a drivers licence. I am on a national database because I’ve had security clearance. Don’t feel special because you’re on one for owning a gun. Also, how are you being punished? You’re required to be registered for owning a dangerous weapon, the same way people are on registers for owning dangerous animals. Good for you that you obey the rules as they are. Any inconvenience you suffer is at the benefit of society in preventing people who would not act responsibly with weapons obtain them. Does it work 100% of the time? Of course not. But it’s a shitload better than the US.

Your name:Michael says:

10:39am | 28/10/11

I wonder if there is more than one Vashti around, hi Vashti

Nee VVP?

HappyCynic says:

01:40pm | 27/10/11

Playing devil’s advocate for a second, hippos are the deadliest animal in Africa and giraffes are excellent eating (basically just like beef) 

That said though, unless that giraffe was used for food (unlikely) then that guy’s a bloody coward, why hunt a vegetarian?  Why not hunt something that can fight back and hunt it fairly, no tools, no guns just your bare hands, if you get torn apart, well no big loss to the world, you were weak and evolution played its part admirably.  If you win then awesome, stuff the thing, mount its head above the fireplace and revel in your crotch-grabbingly awesome level of manliness.

Big-game hunting is even more lame than the catch and release lameness that is sport fishing.  That said though I have heard that the money made from these suckers who go killing big game instead of paying for a much-needed penis extension does all go back into conservation efforts and breeding programs of endangered species but there is some argument about whether the net effect is actually positive.

Ghost says:

01:28pm | 27/10/11

So, Guardian,

To be clear, you used to be a ‘weak as piss nut job who’s dicks can only get hard by exerting what they percieve to be power’, but you aren’t anymore?

How can you be a hunter and have ‘absolute respect for the environment and its creatures’?

Finally, you want to do things with him having taken viagra?

Am I getting this wrong?

subotic says:

01:29pm | 27/10/11

@Wynston Cruso, spot the white middle-class male who hasn’t lived outside of Australia.

I bet the majority of the politically correct holier-than-thous who “pooh pooh” the reversal of Australia’s irrational gun control laws have -

A. never lived more than 15 kilometers outside of the area they were born, let alone lived overseas, and;
B. never had their home broken into or their family menaced by an intruder, and not had the means available to protect themselves accordingly.
C. never watched AMC’s The Walking Dead.

Yes, those zombies may one day come, but until then I still have to deal with living idiots, whom I would deal with a lot better if I could shoot the buggers dead! If I had my guns back!

Warren says:

01:44pm | 27/10/11

If anyone needed to hear a good argument for stronger gun laws here it is…

“I still have to deal with living idiots, whom I would deal with a lot better if I could shoot the buggers dead”

Wynston Cruso says:

02:08pm | 27/10/11

What? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought I was in Australia…. and so to conceal a gun underneath every bed in the house is either the work of a nut job or he knows something we don’t. I’ve experienced all of the things you list, and I wasn’t aware that we had the right to protect ourselves in our own homes in any case. Maybe when people stop getting sued for defending themselves with a baseball bat within thier own home, then we can move on to guns. I fail to see how, if people are getting in trouble for the former, how defending youself with a gun will be any different apart from increasing jail time for anyone brave enough to defend themselves in their own home. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for the zombie apocalypse and have planned accordingly. I even check the back seat, but to this day have had no reason as yet to double tap.

subotic says:

02:16pm | 27/10/11

@Warren, don’t panic sunshine, as long as you keep your hands off my wife and children there’s nothing to worry about.

But if you step foot onto my land for the purpose of hurting my family or removing my private property, then yea, bet you’d be real glad I don’t have my guns, cause I wouldn’t hesitate to shoot.

My apologies for wanting to defend my family, myself, and my property. Stupid, stupid politically incorrect me…

D says:

03:30pm | 27/10/11

@ suboptic

except you’ve also posted suggesting Tory shoot politicians.  So it’s obviously more than just intruders you think people should be able to shoot.

Lots of Australians retained possession of guns after Port Arthur and continue to have them.  That you had to turn yours in would indicate you aren’t considered a fit and proper person to have the responsbilities of firearm ownership.

Kate says:

07:43pm | 27/10/11

@subotic, funnily enough the latest episode of The Walking Dead is more anti-gun than anything. One person gets shot by accident and another manages to put a zombie down not with a gun, but with a crossbow. Plus, the zombies on that show are slow as, if you have decent cardio fitness you’ll be right.
If a 28 Days Later style zombie apocalypse occurs, however, we are so screwed.

subotic says:

10:06am | 28/10/11

@Kate, gee, thanks for The Walking Dead spoiler.

Clown.

#doubletappunchpostspoilers

Muttley says:

10:09am | 28/10/11

so Subotic, you have no issue pumping a few rounds into someone who dared steal your garden hose? That is exactly why guns need to restricted. The poeple that shouldnt have them are always the ones atracted to owning them.

subotic says:

11:09am | 28/10/11

@Muttley, so it’s ok to steal? That’s what you’re saying right? That I shouldn’t be allowed to protect myself, my family or my property? Bugger my rights. Bugger the fact I’ve worked hard to provide a good life for me and mine. Screw my rights. It’s all about everyone else.

You’re the reason my country has become so over-controlled and micro-managed. Let’s punish the victim and protect the criminal.

If you’re even in trouble mate, don’t call on me. I wouldn’t want to impose on “your right” to get the snot beaten out of you…

jf says:

01:33pm | 27/10/11

Why do farmers need guns more than anyone else?

Jet says:

01:35pm | 27/10/11

iansand | Why are the mentally unfit to own one? Are all gun owners evil? Are they capable of flipping at any moment? It must be very scary in your world - do you check under the bed when you go to sleep at night?

Kika says:

01:39pm | 27/10/11

Absolutely agree with you Iansand!!

Alex says:

01:47pm | 27/10/11

Don’t project your own incompetence/insecurities onto others. And since when does being a farmer make you a fit and proper person?

James1 says:

02:54pm | 27/10/11

Just in case a giraffe turns up on their property, jf…

Seriously, because of wild pigs, dingos, foxes and dogs.  Also, when livestock are gravely injured, a rifle makes it much easier to put them down.  Ever tried euthenasing a cow using a rock?

fml says:

03:02pm | 27/10/11

I am pretty sure Iansand finds it acceptable for farmers to have guns so they can kill feral pests who attack their crops, i think thats perfectly acceptable, if on your own farm, miles from anyone else, yes, but in the middle of suburbia, a man drops a gun, it fires and kills someone next door.
How many feral pests do we have in suburbia that require killing with a gun? you may argue self defence, how about buy bigger locks, add security fittings, an alarm, there are other non-violent means to protecting your self.

Another aspect of using guns for self defence which people dont seem to realise is, if there is an intruder in your house, who only has a knife, and you shoot him, you will probably get done for using excessive force. So essentially, when someone breaks in, you have to sneak around till you see they have a gun, go unlock the cupboard, sneak around then shoot him. Good luck with that.

Also, Iansand, you can add police officers to the list of people who should be allowed guns.

Jet says:

03:39pm | 27/10/11

fml | “yes, but in the middle of suburbia, a man drops a gun, it fires and kills someone next door” - have you ever heard of this happening? Or have you just made it up?

“How many feral pests do we have in suburbia that require killing with a gun?” - what about if you like to like to go to a shooting range and pop off a few to relax? Or shouldn’t someone who has never broken the law and never intends to break the law be allowed in your world?

Tator says:

04:33pm | 27/10/11

FML,
You are wrong, if a person has a knife, you can use lethal force.  There is a training video out for law enforcement called “Surviving edged weapons” which shows that any technique that does not instantly incapacitate an offender armed with a knife can be defeated by most people, on top of that, google the name Senior Constable David Barr and see what happened to an experienced officer who attempted to subdue a knife wielding person with mental health problems, which is why prior to the deployment of the taser, most knife wielding offenders were shot by police when they became a direct threat rather than subdued with batons etc.
Now for self defence, currently in SA it is legislated that a person is entitled to use such conduct as he or she genuinely believes is necessary for a ‘defensive purpose’ (that is, in self-defence or in defence of another, or to prevent or end an unlawful imprisonment) under s 15 Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935. This will be a complete defence to an offence, including murder, as long as the force used was, in the circumstances as the defendant genuinely believed them to be, reasonably proportionate to the threat the defendant genuinely believed to exist (for example, see Zecevic v DPP (1987) 162 CLR 645).  That is directly from the SA Law Handbook.

Bev says:

05:08pm | 27/10/11

fml says:04:02pm | 27/10/11

Another aspect of using guns for self defence which people dont seem to realise is, if there is an intruder in your house, who only has a knife, and you shoot him, you will probably get done for using excessive force.

I have a friend who is into Viking reenactment. He says if he found a burglar in his house he would don his gamberson and maile and put on his helm and confront him with his sword. He recons a burglar would be so petrified he would want to be handed over to the police for his protection no force necessary.  In any case he says his armour is dam good protection against not only knives but iron bars and baseball bats.  Don’t know if he is right but it would be interesting.

Ghost says:

05:28pm | 27/10/11

Again Bev,

You should really understand the law before you spout off about it.  The use of force is not reliant on your choice of weapon, it’s reliant on equal and proportionate force to defend the assault.

I hope your mate’s burglar gives him 15 minutes to get kitted up!

seniorcynic says:

06:03pm | 27/10/11

jf, farmers need guns for pest control, euthanasing sick or diseased stock that are too far gone for veterinary attention. If we let them suffer then the DPI or RSPCA will prosecute us. RSPCA even have a protocol for humane euthanasia by firearm - check out their website if you are interested.

iansand says:

06:09pm | 27/10/11

Bev - Grabbing a weapon that is readily to hand in the heat of the moment gives you a good chance of getting up on a self defence basis, even if it is a gun against a knife.  Taking a few deep breaths and donning fancy dress suggests a degree of pre-meditation that takes your actions outside the virtually instantaneous reaction required to prove self defence.

jf says:

07:20am | 28/10/11

James1

I liked your first response first.

All fair comments though (along with SeniorCynic).

My question was actually a weak attempt at being prevocative.

I mate of mine was a jackaroo. He was working near the border of Qld and the NT and some officials came out to see them in relation to a roo cull they were planning. They were trying to reduce the number and the property managers were trying to increase it.

The officials left at dusk and hit three roos between the office and the front gate - one on the way back to the office to get help.

OchreBunyip says:

04:40pm | 28/10/11

A firearm is a tool, like all tools it can be used or misused. I think shovels were mentioned higher up in the comments, should we license them too?

Warren says:

01:46pm | 27/10/11

@Emir. And the anti gun lobby will fight you every step of the way.

Emir says:

02:31pm | 27/10/11

Losing fight Warren, gun bans are ineffective and there are many unbiased statistics and studies to prove it. The number of law abiding shooters/voters are increasing.

Warren says:

05:31pm | 27/10/11

@Emir. Nonsense. Australians are too smart to buy into the “Guns don’t kill people ” argument, which is why the Shooters Party is a fringe group and PMs who address them wear bullet proof vests.

Chris says:

01:39pm | 27/10/11

Probably in the millions of acres returned from extensive cattle grazing back to wildlife and nature in Africa, due to the fees paid by overseas hunters. Would you prefer that all the wild animals are killed and the land returned to cattle. Hunting properties provide millions of animals with habitat and sustainable manage sometimes endangered species. The scimitar-horned oryx which is officially extinct in the wild still exists due to it being bred on hunting reserves for hunters, otherwise it would be extinct now. Real conservation involves sustainable management, not lock up and hope for the best.

Ghost says:

01:35pm | 27/10/11

The PC crowd have done a sterling job to date though, haven’t they?

St. Michael says:

04:46pm | 27/10/11

“Some of the comments are just as bad; Ol’Wobbly “If there are no guns in private hands there will be no gun violence or gun crime” Seen what is happening in Syria these days, Libya? Hitler didn’t allow private ownership of firearms and either did Stalin - both regimes killed tens of millions.”

The US does, and they still wind up killing thousands.  Every year.  Because morons want their guns.

Phil says:

12:38pm | 28/10/11

St Michael; “The US does, and they still wind up killing thousands.  Every year.  Because morons want their guns”.
You might be surprised if you look further into the US statistics. Some US cities have quite restrictive gun laws, (NY,  DC, Chicago) and higher crime rates, including murder. Some US states (Vermont being a good example), have very unrestrictive gun laws, but very low crime rates, including murder. US crime, including murder, align more with socio-economic factors, than with gun ownership rates, or gun laws. Crime is high in socially disadvantaged areas in NY, Chicago, Detroit, LA, and low in working, middle, and upper class areas. Compare a working/middle class area in the US, with one in Australia, you’ll likely find LESS crime there than here. By way of interest, look at the crime rate (incl murder) in Australia’s Northern Territory - it’s bad, and worse than most of the US. (Yes, I have lived in the US).
I will make the point, again, that authoritarian regimes who disarm their population have killed, and continue to kill (eg China/Tibet, Myanmar, Nth Korea), more innocent people than private firearm owners could ever do. And those people had/have no hope of gaining freedom from those murderous regimes.
Look at the ABS stats, Australia’s lowest crime levels were during WW2, when we were an armed camp. They remained low even after the war when we had virtually no gun control laws Why is that? Maybe, like the US, crime and murder are more of a socioeconomic issue than a gun control one? (And if you also look at Aust stats, guns are, and for a long time have been, the least likely way to get murdered - knives and blunt objects and ‘assaultive force’ (kicking, punching), are the most common), and criminals with unlicenced, firearms overwhelming commit crimes with firearms to boot (which they don’t seem to have any problem smuggling in, or getting on the black market it seems).
It really is time to rethink things and get off the back of licenced firearm owners. It achieves nothing but waste police resources, for no gain. How about we quit the softly softly approach to criminals instead?

Kika says:

01:31pm | 27/10/11

Well if you Redneck Righties think it’s an enjoyable pastime to murder innocent animals for fun, go ahead.

Mr A Dad says:

01:33pm | 27/10/11

@ MarkDureau, do you want to go and shoto Giraffe as well????

I dont see anywahere on this website where it says anything written by the author or you or me has to unbiased or inpartial.

If facts it a great place jsut for that a persons opinion!

DougB says:

02:37pm | 27/10/11

@ Kika, it is very enjoyable murdering innocent animals.  Thank you for your permission.

Of course those innocent animals in my case have been,
Buffalo (introduced species and destroying our northern national parks and grazing lands, they also carry TB, and have killed quite a few people)
Wild Pigs (as per buffalo)
Donkeys which are in numbers people just don’t believe till they see the herds, destroying pastures,parks, bushlands, everything.
Kangaroos, I grew up eating this, without it I would have starved.  Now days I don’t hunt them any more.  I have certainly cleared large numbers of them out of the paddocks where your wheat is grown to make your bagels, bread and donuts. (To go with your soy latte).
Rabbits & Foxes, feral cats etc, if I have to explain why we shoot them you need to go live on a farm for a year.

Kika says:

04:49pm | 27/10/11

DougB - there is a difference between eradicating feral species and shooting animals for sport i.e. the man in the picture with the giraffe.. Don’t pretend you didn’t know what I was talking about. INNOCENT.

DougB says:

05:44pm | 27/10/11

@Kika, Fair comment, but then, how do we know the giraffe in the photo wasn’t feral? Or ruining pastures which african nations badly need? Or old and injured?  We see a photo so we jump to the most likely explanation according to our belief.

marley says:

07:33pm | 27/10/11

@DougB - the animal was young and healthy. Look at it.  And I don’t see how a giraffe can be “feral” in its native territory.  They graze on savannas, not farmland.Geez.

Kebabpete says:

01:35pm | 27/10/11

Pretty sure we were speaking english in this country long before any war took place.

Joanne says:

02:19pm | 27/10/11

@Kebabpete
I believe you missed the point.
If we lost the war and were over run by the Japanese, we wouldnt be an English speaking country right now.

fml says:

03:09pm | 27/10/11

Also the dutch discovered Australia before the british, if they didnt think it was barren wasteland we could be speaking dutch.

MrV says:

02:28pm | 27/10/11

Oh yay, what a boost to the ego that must be, skillful shooting an old animal who is fenced in and can’t escape.
Forgive me if I don’t see this as being a macho activity.

Kitfox says:

01:51pm | 27/10/11

only an armchair warrior can post crap like this.
The ability and willingness to shoot an animal is in no way connected to ability and willingness to shoot a human being. If it was we would have the same eutanasia laws apply to humans that are in pain and suffering as we apply to animals.
The sad truth is pulling a trigger on an animal is easier since the purpose of the hunt is to accuire food or pelt or simly eradicate the vermin from the farm causing damage to the lifestock.
Shooting a human is a whole separate category of fked up and if you think they are same as shooting animals you need pscyhiatric help im afraid.

Jet says:

01:51pm | 27/10/11

Kika | “Anyone who can shoot an animal can shoot a human. That’s clear.” - what absolute divel. Are you saying that abattoir workers are capable of killing people too. And farmers that kill some of their livestock for family food. Saying that I hope you’re a vegetarian otherwise you’re keeping those unbalanced, about to flip-out, capable of murdering people abbattoir workers in a job killing animals.

“Those supporting guns have clearly said they need them in the house for protection…. so they can shoot someone if they invade their property” - yeah Kika, are you that weak-minded that you wouldn’t protect your children if someone broke into your home and threatened them. I wouldn’t think twice about shooting someone in the head to defend my precious family. You’d obviously rather let them die.

fairsfair says:

02:18pm | 27/10/11

Anyone who can shoot an animal can shoot a human? Who are you calling nutty…. Seriously Kika - that is a really long bow to draw.

Power of the bush. Makes a change from SEQ dominating our elections though and imposing a premier who only cares about a few square kilometres in the southeast corner. She has spent a sh*tload of money in Brisbane with not much to show from it. The people of MacKay and the Bowen Basin (where the majority of this state’s money comes from) had to wait for a federal election to get any kind of infrastructure planning (Ring Road). So you can kind of see where they are coming from. I am looking forward to the required change, however the cards fall.

Regional Queenslanders are no more nuttier than Brisbanites Kika. I realised quite quickly after moving there, that Brisbane is just several Cairns Townsville Mackay linkages where people who shop at Garden City would never possibly think of driving to Chermside for something different. The only difference is they are not separated by 400km of highway, it is just some socially determined road with a Good Guys on it, that must not be crossed. One of my colleagues hadn’t been into the city in over ten years and because he lived in Rochdale spent most of his time bagging out Redland Shire. Brisbane has just as many bumpkins and ignorant people as downtown Ravenshoe. Deal with it.

Ghost says:

02:21pm | 27/10/11

Kika doesn’t represent the thoughts of all Queenslanders. 

“Anyone who can shoot an animal can shoot a human. That’s clear.’ is an EQUALLY pretty nutty statement.

Kika says:

04:52pm | 27/10/11

Fairsfair - you are right. I would never drive to Chermside. Are you mad? That place is a nightmare. Southside all the way.

Ah, no. Actually it’s true. If you can murder, you can murder. Simple as that.  By saying you could shoot someone in your house you are admitting you COULD murder. I couldn’t. Not even if they were in my house. I would call the police. I could not kill anyone. I could hurt them, yes. But I wouldn’t murder them.

You can’t debate this with me. I come from a long line of vegetarians and hindus and I will never separate the karma of murder from murder. It’s the same thing.

Jet says:

01:42pm | 28/10/11

kika | So you’re saying that if your family were physically threatened by an intruder, say you had children, that you would let the intruder hurt them.

I’m a 5.2 women and if a intruder came into my home to hurt my kids I wouldn’t be able to stop him with brute force - I would have to use a weapon.

“You can’t debate this with me. I come from a long line of vegetarians and hindus and I will never separate the karma of murder from murder. It’s the same thing.”

And you can’t debate this with me. Honey, long line of vegetarians and hindus - so what? What has being a vegetarian got to do with saving your children from harm. A woman that would let her children be hurt has something wrong with her. It’s not natural. As a mother I’d take the bad karma on without a second thought if it meant saving my children from harm. You honey are a very selfish, self-centred person.

Amuse Bouche says:

04:20pm | 27/10/11

What about Mr Auger? Does that mean all donors to political parties are fair game in the public forum, with respect to their private pursuits? Is Mr and Mrs Jones down the street’s affair now of public interest because they donated $1000 to the Tomato Tomato Tomato Party last year? Will your Punch tomorrow be on the scandalous private lives of the property developers feeding the Lib/Lab/Nat political machine? It would only be fair. You may not like what messers Nioa and Auger do, but that does not make them a target for villification.

My main criticism of the article, beyond the ad hominem attacks, is that you do nothing in the way of criticism of the actual (inferred) policy. Are you for Mr Katters stand against petty over-regulation, which when it comes to the private ownership of firearms, he sees as overly onerous conditions placed on their use? Or do you do you object to the principles the Australia party outlines in items 10, 13, 15 and 16 on their website (Who we are -> Core values and principles)? It is only fair and in the public interest as a journalist for you to be open and transparent as to where you stand, in the same way those you chose to target today have.

Dane says:

03:32pm | 27/10/11

What an utterly stupid comment - firstly it’s an opinion piece.  Understand what that means?  Who says she has to balance her opinions according to you!  Secondly, when was the last time you saw Bob shoot a giraffe?

Idiot..

Jet says:

03:35pm | 27/10/11

No Dane - but I’ve seen Bob destroy a country ...

Idiot

fairsfair says:

03:49pm | 27/10/11

Sorry Dane, by Bob you mean Bob Katter?

Dane says:

10:13am | 28/10/11

fairs - Bob Brown as per Anna’s comment..

Jet - I don’t think you’re hysterical enough when you proclaim the country is destroyed - try waving your arms above your head and screaming when you say it..

fairsfair says:

11:10am | 28/10/11

When was the last time you saw Bob Katter shoot a giraffe Dane?

Dane says:

01:23pm | 28/10/11

What the F has that got to do with anything fairs?  What an odd thing to say.. taken your meds today?

Daniel says:

03:08pm | 27/10/11

Frankly TC, We are pretty happy with that idea as well. Stay where you are please!

marley says:

03:08pm | 27/10/11

Canada may be getting rid of the long-gun registry, but it sure as hell isn’t getting rid of the hand-gun restrictions.

Seanr says:

02:23pm | 27/10/11

Actually it’s great to be in NQ. Katter is a politician, who really cares about his electorate, speaks his mind (even if I don’t agree with it all the time) and has a bit of character about him unlike a lot of the big city politicians.

fairsfair says:

03:15pm | 27/10/11

Yep, I’ll second what Seanr says. I disagree with some of the things he says and does and the way he behaves sometimes. But I’ll take him over some sanitised party muzzled lemming who is only out to generate a good sound bit at every oppotunity.

Zaf says:

03:25pm | 27/10/11

I’d rather someone sane than someone amusing.  jmho.

Chris says:

03:24pm | 27/10/11

Maybe they were OK with getting a few bucks more than the going price for their guns, but the three years of hatred in the media, the howling pitchfork-wielding self-righteousness against gun owners was just appalling. The ordinary mainstream people that owned guns showed ordinary decency by sharing the community’s outrage with the killings, but that wasn’t enough for the chattering classes; they howled their hate in phrases like “Moronic gun-freak mates.”

Not another Stooge says:

03:32pm | 27/10/11

Most shooters who handed in during the buyback, used the funds to buy two or more rifles. There are more fireams in possession of licenced shooters now than in 1996. Tory would know this if she actually researched before rants.

Ghost says:

02:23pm | 27/10/11

Fighting giraffes ‘down the dojo’ is also fairly weak to be honest.

St. Michael says:

09:18pm | 27/10/11

I don’t know, dude, giraffe ninjas are badass brawlers.  And they got reach.

Mick says:

02:27pm | 27/10/11

That’s right Yosemite Sam, we have to shoot them to protect them.

My father taught me that if you kill it, you have to eat it, hence I would never shoot a giraffe.

Duh says:

07:33pm | 27/10/11

Because Bob is and the PM isn’t.

Keith Hammersmith says:

03:10pm | 27/10/11

why?
Because Giraffes are cute?
Hunting these animals in Africa puts a monetary value on them,  that they didn’t have before,  meaning the Africans who are essentially poorer than us, would have a reason to keep preserves and these animals around, rather than what was happening before, was these animals were disappearing.
But its easy to sit in Australia, on your computer and judge isn’t it!

Mick says:

03:42pm | 27/10/11

@ Keith

Coz having a monetary value worked out great for the black rhino right?

There are plenty of species that are detrimental to native flora and fauna which we can hunt without having to set sights on exotic species.

Keith Hammersmith says:

05:46pm | 27/10/11

you missed the point about the monetary value mick.
Its not a monetary value about these animals not damaging flora and fauna, its about the hunting precisely.  Previously a full grown Giraffe or lion had no value to a poor native tribe trying to fill their bellies but for the meat. so the most valuable thing they could do is kill it and eat it. Now a hunter will pay big dollars to come kill said animal.  So the incentive is there to provide habitat and safety to said animals, as they become a cog in a business.  Thus you will see more of these animals than you would if they were not being hunted.  Now it is in the interests of the people to ensure these animals survive, that hunting is done in a proper manner so that their new business will also survive.

There is a lot more to this than just “look at that dick that killed a giraffe”

hawker says:

07:06pm | 27/10/11

Yes Keith, which I’m sure was his main was his main motivation for shooting it. You know, all those hungry Africans.

Keith Hammersmith says:

09:28pm | 27/10/11

you are now missing the point hawker,  it is irrelevant the motivation behind the hunter killing the animal,  whats is relevant is what becomes of the situation.  For example, I dont care about the environment, but solar energy makes my electricity bills cheaper….  my motivation and the outcome are different.

yes the hunter is a poor shadow of a real man,  I agree with that, but the fact that Africans can make that into a positive, and now have a reason to keep these majestic animals and their habitat around is not something that should be ignored. 

It is very real that the hunting of these animals (legally by wealthy westerners) is in no small way contributing to their protection and prosperity.  They now have a value to the poor.

Neil Davie says:

09:20am | 05/11/11

Give it up Keith. You can’t put brains in statues and there’s not much point in getting into a battle of wits with an unarmed man. Your mate Keith probably thinks there is such an animal as a White Rhino. As you and I both know, You have two choices with wild animils such as Hippo, Giraffe and Elephant. Either shoot them and let them rot, or get a rich American to pay a fortune for a permit to take one Elephant.  In Botswana , it costs around $75,000.00 for the permit, guide, observers, trophy prep etc. On top of this money which all goes to the villagers and wildlife programs, every scrap of the animal goes to the locals. Bushmeat is around 40% of their diet. Poachers don’t have much luck either as they will be lucky to escape with their lives. The Masai in Kenya just kill them and leave the bodies out for the Lions and Hyenas. Tolerance level for poachers is zero. If not for sustainable hunting, Africa would be a barren wasteland for wildlife. But the dopey cute and fluffy brigade don’t have much tolerance for logic and cold hard facts. Guess you just have to have experienced the real world, not the one from their Greenie teacher instilled imaginations.

Save the Kittens says:

03:26pm | 27/10/11

Bwahahahaha, like Black Farmers don’t produce beef/sheep/goats. roflmao.

Waz says:

03:50pm | 27/10/11

@ Anthony

It’s more than that. Like any animal, as they get old, their teeth lose quality and fall out and their health declines. In the wild they die of starvation/predation and are eaten/rot and the circle of life continues.

The other option is for the authorities to allow a safari hunter to pay money (which goes to the community/or reserve) to shoot the animal which is then butchered and the meat is given to the people of the local villages.

Putting a commercial value on these animals ensures their future survival.

Chunga says:

03:59pm | 27/10/11

Yeah, cause the guy in the photo really looks like he shot the giraffe to ensure his tribe could eat for a few weeks….....missed the point much?

Daemon says:

11:56am | 30/10/11

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to guess what you like to eat Susan.

Alf says:

01:06pm | 02/11/11

CJ needs to get out more.

Seanr says:

04:18pm | 27/10/11

ooh nice one, remove the comment and then act like you didn’t, well played. When I saw it there were 143 comments and i had 3 of them, then a few minutes later, 142 comments and I had 2 of them…strange (I kept track because I thought this might happen).

Just so you know, throwing out random insults and quotes is not backing up your argument.

fairsfair says:

04:23pm | 27/10/11

Sorry Tors - I saw it and now it is gone. It definately looks like it has purposely taken down (whether that be the actual case or what).

I considered replying to it, but I generally don’t partake in that stuff so I decided against it. However, now that this secondary event has occurred…. I have to say - this is a really bad (sorry - eeek!).

I get that its your opinion, I get that this is what this site is about, but it is badly written, badly explained, the argument is poorly formed and it sounds as developed as the unjustified crap I talk in the tearoom while ABC24 is playing and there is some polly is doing a press conference in the parliament house garden.

I certainly don’t agree with all of your politics and opinions but in the past I have always still enjoyed the writing and the conversation it has generated. This though just seems like garble though, and it is not of your usual standard.

I share your outrage at the killing of the giraffe and other big game, but the links made in this article are really a stretch.

hot tub political machine says:

04:27pm | 27/10/11

I’ll say it again. Oh how I wish people would pick up a dictionary before they used the word socialist.

Warren says:

05:32pm | 27/10/11

OMG Seanr it’s a conspiracy!!! Quick hide before they get you!!!

Keith Hammersmith says:

05:40pm | 27/10/11

Hey Tory, 
You are a writer, correct?
Your writing is poorly structured, that rebuttal post is just horrendous.
“you got anything”  surely you mean, “do you have anything”
etc.
seriously, I am sure you can do better than that.  It doesn’t make your arguments very compelling when it seems written by an 8th grader.

Seanr says:

05:49pm | 27/10/11

I’ll stress I don’t normally throw out personal insults but I wanted to see
1. If there would be a double standard around publishing it
2. Highlight that random insult add nothing to an argument
@htpm, socialist isn’t an insult, champagne socialist can be
seriously Tory if as a journalist, f#@$wit is the best word in the English language you can think of, that’s sad.

fairsfair says:

11:25am | 28/10/11

I’m not offended by the use of the term fuckwit - I employ it myself quite often. I am also disgusted by people shooting animals for sport (that are not in plague proportions or causing environmental damage) and I too would call them fuckwits. But that is not the issu. That is not Bob Katter in that photo, this article, you’d swear it was.

To use your disgust of someone’s personal choices (it is not illegal) to attack another person completely seperate to the physical act, is not really good quality Tors. I get he is a financial backer, I get that Bob Katter is in favour of loosening restrictions on gun ownership - but using this issue as a means to wheel out every single stupid thing the man has ever said, again label him crazy as well as harshly criticise the lifestyle choices of other people in the process, is just really hard to take. It kind of flies in the face of all your articles criticising individuals and institutions that opress the rights of others.

Why didn’t you use this photograph and Bob Katter’s single quote in response as a means of blowing apart his gun policy (some details of which are available on his website)? That would have been a really good discussion point as it is 15 years since Port Arthur, JWH’s election and the gun buy back scheme?

All the above leads me to question is what kind of fuckwit calls someone in 2011 “a throw-back nutjob bunker-mentality troglodyte”? Please. Spare us.

Cate says:

01:34pm | 13/11/11

I agree with you. Double Standard.  No name calling please - says Tory Shepherd to the term “twit” or “idiot” to me Yet what is she doing here.
As much as I agree that hunting or killing any living being is disgusting a much more educated and presented article would have gone a lot further.  You have politicised game hunting.  It is a psychotic sport. I am not against shooting clay targets or round boards, but to take a life gives people pleasure and a thrill makes me shudder.
I can’t believe your outburst was so uncontrolled. I don’t think you have the right now to call any kettles black.

Ghost says:

04:03pm | 27/10/11

Tell me Bob Katter is of any greater difference from Bob Brown, yet we don’t have character assassinations on him here?  Instead, they bang on how wonderful Carbon Tax will be, not able to comprehend it won’t make a lick of difference.

Sharon says:

03:28pm | 28/10/11

@Ghost:  Bob Brown advocates peace, equality, compassion and looking after the planet for future generations. He doesn’t support the redneck huntin’ and shootin’ mob.

Your pathetic attempt to compare analysis of these 2 individuals who are poles apart is hysterically ludicrous.

Jameson says:

04:47pm | 27/10/11

If you don’t like guns why don’t you go live in China? No guns over there.
They do have a higher murder rate though.

Keith Hammersmith says:

05:36pm | 27/10/11

you know the giraffe wasnt eaten?  usually the meat goes to near by villages.

Daemon says:

12:04pm | 30/10/11

@Justin. Well done on correct spelling of “scumbags”. The other errors ... well it’s to be expected really.

Perhaps you could hand out “watermelons” at the gate of your local school pet?

Vicki PS says:

10:13pm | 27/10/11

That’s an awfully long and convoluted apologia for canned hunting.  Canned hunters are philanthropists? Seriously?  Canned hunting is all about conservation?  And it’s all okay because they’re not wicked slanty-eyed foreign POACHERS? Oh stop, stop, I’m about to get my golden-shouldered parrot feather boa all soggy with tears. 

You’re cracking me up: the mental image of Katter’s bold and fearless microphallic mates chowing down on hippoburgers and BBQ giraffe ribs for the next 3 months to prove their bona fides is priceless.

Daemon says:

12:08pm | 30/10/11

Gov@Faux whatever, well done.

My question is, what was your point?

Your bantams may be part of it, but then I hate saying “cock-head” in the middle of such an excellent rant.

Arthur Petersen says:

04:59pm | 27/10/11

I agree with Tims overit.  Why spoil a story for want of a few facts. Oh, and the language in the article, I am not impressed.

Daemon says:

12:10pm | 30/10/11

Well done Timmy and Art. Hey can I borrow some oil to re-do the barrel of my Lee Enfield?

Chris says:

10:01pm | 27/10/11

Couldn’t have said it better myself. 

+1

Duh says:

07:39pm | 27/10/11

Some Punch commenters are even funnier.

Shooting animals - good.
Using a swear word - bad.

Sang says:

07:10am | 28/10/11

@ Duh
defamation, hate speech and verbal abuse - Crime
Taking drugs - Crime
Stealing - Crime
Hunting - Legal

Funny ol’ world isn’t it.

Sharon says:

08:17pm | 27/10/11

I’d rather read Tory’s potty mouthed intelligent compassionate articles than put up with minority barbaric blood-thirsty rednecks of our society. What a sad indictment on the human race.

Well said Tory - keep up the great work, you are a beautiful person.

Govt@FauxCitizen says:

10:05pm | 27/10/11

@Sharon, intelligent it is not, poorly researched, personally offensive, hypocritical and slanderous it is, suffering a severe bout of Bambi Syndrome.
While some people divorce themselves from the realty and pay ohers to do the killing, and then go hunting down the supermarket aisles with their credit cards to get their meat pre-cut and packed on black absorbent mats in convenient black styrene trays that don’t show the blood so all the precious petals don’t get all upset and stuff, I’m happy going bush teaching my sons and daughter to hunt 100% free range deer butcher it eat it and proudly feed it to my family and freinds, then sit around the campfire or the table at home and remember the hunt and many others past.

Sharon says:

12:03pm | 28/10/11

As an extremely healthy vegan for the past 11 years, the only point I can agree with you on is the hypocrisy of those who purchase packaged meat with no desire to see or think too much about exactly how the animal flesh actually gets to the shop shelves.

An apt quote from the wonderful Alice Walker: “The animals of the world exist for their own reasons.  They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for white, or women created for men.”

For me, it’s all about choosing to do less harm.

Duh says:

06:27pm | 28/10/11

“gabbage” ? You, Terry.

Vicki PS says:

09:59pm | 27/10/11

Yep.  Even geniuses can talk crap sometimes.

DaveP says:

07:31am | 28/10/11

Funnily enough lots and lots of “geniuses’ seem to have made similar comments throughout history. Must be something in the brain once you attain a certain IQ level???
Or possibly its as simple as the facts are the facts and even when divided by centuries leading thinkers and statesman reach the same conclusions.
It amazes me that we can accept global warming based on forecasts and speculated outcomes but when confronted with historical fact that does not match our belief set we deny the obvious (want facts look at the ABS).
This whole article and debate is little more than an attempt to discredit Bob Katter because the author does not like him. Apparently thats what passes for journalism around here what about the former/current/waiting to be again Prime Minister who was catching marlin and other game fish or sea kittens as our misguided friends at PETA like to call them. Did you know K.Rudd was a licensed shooter???? Best hook into him .. funny how shooting is identified only when it suits your argument, by the way I dont see Bob Katter in that picture. Have you checked what those who donate money to other political parties do in there own time????? I thought not
Bob Brown once killed a fly lets bag him ...
Wake up to yourselves and try to behave like adults.
Tory whilst you find all this amusing I am sure doesnt it concern you that somewhere someone who thought you had what it takes to be a great journo is rolling in their grave, probably next to a giraffe or onyx or roger rabbit

Sharon says:

10:02pm | 27/10/11

Not sure what use the money is to the poor dead animal!

What a ludicrous and desperately shameful attempt to justify thrill killing.

Rod Jones says:

10:52pm | 27/10/11

have you ever had to put down a animal in pain….. maybe the farmer should stab it over and over again, use your head and dont show your lack of!, and think of the next farmer who gets gored by a razor back and dies or is a cripple due to not being allowed to have the semiauto gun for protection (yes this happens) just to bring your factory farmed steak to woolies for you…. oh hang on if we keep going the current direction the steak will come from China and be full of heavy metals and cancer causing chemicals because the farmers let the industry due to not being able to safely and effectively farm. A prime example of disassociation here boys and girls.

palone says:

11:17am | 28/10/11

@Rod jones. First, if I was in pain I wouldn’t be trying to put down an animal.
Why would a farmer get gored by a pig trying to bring beef to Woolies?
Having spent more years on the land than you have had sensible thoughts, I can tell you that only a fool or a Bondi 4WD owner would venture anywhere near a ‘razor back’ for any reason. Which are you?

Rod Jones says:

10:22pm | 27/10/11

so you justify the meat you eat because its “factory farmed” hmm still is an animal, has society become so disassociated with life that they forget where food comes from, this disassociation is part of the reason people have no consequence from action, If you kill a animal to eat it you understand life and death, the more we drift from that one becomes inhuman and cannot relate to life and death, hence why we have disassociated killers/rapists/criminal who do not value life. And do you eat free range or factory eggs?

Ren says:

06:19am | 28/10/11

Rod perhaps the sarcasm was too subtle. I was trying to say that unless you’re a vegetarian, if you’re against all hunting you’re a hypocrite. Hunted animals live better lives then one ones who end up on a burger.

Grumpy says:

02:33pm | 28/10/11

Just wondering - how would you use a firearm to crack a walnut? Would you hold the walnut down and hit it with the butt or stand back from it and shoot at it?

I suspect the gun safety commenting defence types elsewhere on the list might suggest that neither of these is a good idea?

Okay, tongue out of cheek now. I can’t help but keep coming back to this article.

At first I was with Tory, I couldn’t decide what kind of cuckwit would shoot a giraffe. Shooting giraffe (or anything actually) has zero appeal to me adn to be honest it turns my gut a bit. Then again, I fish, mainly for Trout but other things too. When it comes down to it, whats really the difference? Is the difference that Giraffe are bigger? That we see them at the zoo?

I don’t know

MacP says:

08:16am | 28/10/11

|  (P.S.  Don’t you love the way gun fanatics, like speeding drivers, whine that the law should be targetting “real” criminals.  As opposed to fake criminals?  Or just amateurs?)  |

Yes, it is a fine thing that they continue to point out the discrepancy between acting for real policing and community safety, rather than the pseudo revenue collections and visible yet retrospective investigations our governments put forth to placate the sheeple.

Reply

Vicki PS says:

02:24pm | 30/10/11

@MacP:  If you expect a reply rather than a mere batting at straw men, define “real policing” and “community safety”.

Alex says:

04:25pm | 04/11/11

Yeah, it’s easy; aim and shoot. Golf is easy, too; just hit the ball in the hole. Motorcycle racing is equally trivial; ride faster than everyone else and don’t fall off. I could go on…

Bringing a giraffe down in one shot is not a simple task. Yes, the Giraffe is huge (as many of you *geniuses* have pointed out), but the areas containing the vital organs aren’t. Furthermore, they’re contained within a 3-dimensional body so the 2-dimensional projection of the target volume moves and changes shape as the animal and hunter move relative to each other.

Why is it that whenever someone is against a certain activity to the point that they can’t stand anyone else even considering taking part, they invariably know absolutely nothing about the said activity?

This is not just about shooting/hunting, it happens all the time. People are all too ready to open their mouths and voice their opinions with absolute certainty regarding topics of which they are not even remotely educated. The one’s that have half a clue can’t be certain about anything, because they know the shortcomings of their knowledge.

MacP says:

12:37pm | 28/10/11

Ironic that the most factual, best reasoned, and well referenced piece of writing on this page have been given the least regard. Its a shame when infantile rantings and false rhetoric gets a wider audience than truthful substance. :(

Gobsmacked says:

08:57am | 28/10/11

You are one of the living and breathing reason why Howard sought to reduce gun ownership in this country. I would like to add my real name to this coment, but people like you scare me shitless.

Ghost says:

06:09am | 28/10/11

Oh Dave the big internet toughy!  Step away folks. REAL man here.

subotic says:

10:01am | 28/10/11

Woohoo, love it when I touch a nerve.

Dave, baby, I’m a 42 year old white male skinhead Australian, with an American wife, 2 Asian kids, a 1968 Monaro (without electric windows) and a desire to what I want when I want, without having the government that people like you voted in telling me everything I should or shouldn’t do. Like owning a gun.

And for the record, I don’t vote. I’m a conscientious objector and write to the government every single state and federal election to tell them why I choose not to vote.

And I’m quite happy for you to come over my place for a sippy-cup of milk big man, cause I’d like to offer you a Bundaberg rum or a beer, but I guess metrosexuals like you don’t do alcohol, ‘cause that stuff’s bad for you. Rite?

Duh says:

06:32pm | 28/10/11

Thanks for not voting subotic.

iansand says:

07:17am | 28/10/11

Why would you shoot a giraffe?  Do they taste good?

MacP says:

08:05am | 28/10/11

Yes they taste good, like beef.

Why shoot it? Because it is part of a sustainable breeding and management program that is bring $1000s of overseas dollars into under-developed communities so that the local economies can be developed in a manner that doesn’t degrade the environment or decimate the local fauna.

To an African, this would be like crying over roadkill. It seems the Superiority Complex of the White Chattering Classes didn’t abandon the Africa with Independance

marley says:

01:12pm | 28/10/11

@MacP - I have no problem with Africans going out and shooting a giraffe to feed their family.  I do have a real problem with guys like this paying big bucks to have locals find them a giraffe so they can pull out the telescopic rifle and shoot it, and then boast about what great hunters they are.  This is to hunting as dodgem cars is to F1.

MacP says:

04:06pm | 28/10/11

@ Marley - If the tourist shoots the beast the village still eats the meat plus the village benfits from cash and infrastructure. This is an economic multiplier in that the village has the funds or infrastructure to increase productive output (think of it as leveraging the natural resource to gain a return beyond its basic worth as a meal).

Which sustains the giraffe population longer; A tourist hunts a beast that is consumed by the village and provides cash for next seasons food crop, or the village fails to produce a crop but kills a giraffe each fortnight to sustain the village?

Due to the tourist the giraffe is now worth a village meal + a crop? + a generator? +  a water pump? + ????? By increasing the intrinsic value of the beast you are providing incentive for the locals, businesses and governments to manage and protect these species. This has been a long standing model for conservation and has been the saviour of many african plains species.

Don’t be so short-sighted. Conservation is not about locking things away from mankind. Its about balance, equilibrium and sustainable management.

Don’t holdback developing communities by decreeing that they can only harvest their resources for the price of a meal rather than leverage their value for long-term benefit of their community.

marley says:

06:25pm | 28/10/11

@MacP - you missed my point.  I’m not arguing against the conservation aspects, the earning aspects or anything else. The locals need to have an income, they need to eat, and giraffes aren’t endangered.  Fine with me. 

What I’m disgusted about is some idiot boasting that he’s a great white hunter because he’s shot an animal in those conditions.  Let’s get real here.  This is no more challenging than shooting a moving target at a carnival.  It’s hardly an accomplishment worth boasting about . That’s my beef.

Govt@FauxCitizen says:

09:35am | 28/10/11

The imagination of some who post here is quite revealing, it’s almost on a par with their ignorance.
Nothing like a fuckwits bleating to bring the ilk out of the woodwork.

Chris says:

07:47pm | 28/10/11

@old fart - would you prefer he shot an elephant? They are one of the most dangerous wild animals in africa that kill many locals and hunters.  Are you saying if the animal has a sporting chance then it’s ok to shoot it?

Burko says:

11:33am | 28/10/11

Ahh the level five vegan steps in…....Mr Geoff, Im right and your wrong Russell. Wondered when youd rear your vey ugly head and say something dumb and highly offensive.Ladies and gentlemen the very definition of a fu@%#%t…...
  Im a hunter and proud of the fact. I get the same sense of satisfaction hunting feral introduced pest species as I get from fishing, raising my chooks or tending my vege patch. I get pleasure from being able to provide for me, my family and friends. I have never schmoozed a Pollie and have never caused any brutal or barbarous suffering towards any animal. Once again Russell, you put yourself on a moral high horse just because you think your veganism entitles you to do so.
“how stunningly brutal and barbarous these people are ... and how beautifully they lie when required…....proof, not just your opinion, proof. The “lie when required” bit sounds familiar though….you and your anti duck hunting rants, you know, made up wounding rates and such…...how many wounded ducks did you rescue last year?
Just remember if you have ever gone fishing, pulled some yabbies out of a creek or dam, pulled some apples of a tree or even swerved to hit a Cane Toad you by definition are a hunter and therfore one of the aboves brutal and barbarous.
  Be offended by his crass, factless generalistions,  be very offended.

Jason Smith says:

12:09pm | 28/10/11

If you hunt for sport Burko you are not a hunter. Shooting a couple of ducks to eat is fine. Shooting a shitload of ducks for sport should have gone out with slavery and cane furniture.

neffie says:

10:35am | 28/10/11

Well said Dieter. And “such vitriolic abuse is unforgivable”
Sadly people in the cities have no idea of conditions in the bush.
Incidentaly there are thousands of giraffes roaming in Tanzania alone. They are not rare.

Tackleberry says:

08:06pm | 29/10/11

I agree with a couple of your points Tom, however, I strongly disagree with your following comments
“The current gun laws are doing their job and if you need an automatic or semi-automatic rifle to destroy a feral animal you shouldnt have a shooing license.”
That comment in my opinion is ludicrous. It’s not about needing a semi auto, it’s about that the fact that I am a law abiding person, deemed responsible to use firearms in a lawful pastime, and if I want to use a semi auto, I should damn well have the right to do so. In my mind that is like saying to someone “you can have a Toyota Corolla, but even if you have the money, why on earth do you need a 458 Ferrari, you can’t have it”

Cameron says:

11:01am | 03/11/11

You think that’s bad? Try being censored because a few of your words were caps locked. Yet you look at some posts supporting her they’re full of caps locks. I had to rewrite my 4900 character piece because Of it…

Chris says:

04:48pm | 28/10/11

Great quote Brendan.  The more i think about it, the more i agree with you.  He gets my vote too!

Alf says:

07:29pm | 28/10/11

@Brendan. I own guns, but wouldn’t vote for a halfwit like Katter. Sorry to shatter your stereotype.

stephen says:

06:51pm | 28/10/11

Nice response, and all this shooting stuff is reminiscent of old ernest hemingway adventure myths, where the hunters camp out for 4 weeks, they eat boiled spuds, drink whiskey straight, tell curly jokes round a camp-fire and then, when the time is right - by the light of the silvery moon - kills his charging prey, and gets a photo shoot and a trophy for the pool-room back home.
Man alive, don’t they make modern man look so weak.

Yosemite Sam says:

09:58am | 04/11/11

Donna you clearly have no idea ! Katter did not provide anybody with any animals to shoot, tame or otherwise. You seem to have jumped to some far fetched conclusions !

Hartz says:

11:29am | 04/11/11

Nice to see someone who actually has a logical train of thought and the ability to research… Unfortunately it will be lost on the left wing freaks who don’t care about anyones rights but their own and won’t be happy until we are all sipping lattes and eating lentles on the protest line… It has been said that GetUp are the Hitler Youth of the Greens - soooo true!!

Cameron says:

11:12pm | 09/11/11

glad to hear it I wish you all the best. Ring their head office and im sure theyl help you, i met some of their staff at a function once and theyr a really great helpful bunch