How Australia disarmed everyone except the crims

MarkS says:

07:58am | 14/02/12

Yes there is such a thing as judicial immunity. Suing a judge for a prior decision would be considered an unacceptable collateral attack on the prior judgment & a contempt of court.

don says:

09:05am | 14/02/12

Judges are idiots so much of the time , letting real no-hopers off , and hitting not so bad people with far too big fines . As for the anti gunners here , their egos are their only qualification . They have little real knowledge of guns and the people who use them lawfully . Howard’s gun laws were sh*t brained to a large degree , gun crime had been going down for a fair while , I did law enforcement years ago.

acotrel says:

09:09am | 14/02/12

John Howard’s gun laws were his one redeeming feature.  It stands to reason that he had to eventually do something good.  It’s like the monkey bashing a typewriter, and ending up writing Shakespeare !

gobsmack says:

09:20am | 14/02/12

Howard’s gun laws were the only time he acted on principle.  He never repeated that mistake.

Stephen says:

10:23am | 14/02/12

@ gobsmack acotrel: What a load of crock, principle, Howard was and is an opportunist.  Some of his actions benefited the people of Australia but only when his personal agenda aligned with the Australian peoples needs.  Beazley or Costello had the potential to be fare better Prime Minister’s, the Port Author   tragedy was a direct result of administrative and policing failures in Victoria and Tasmania than any perceived laxity in firearms law. Law abiding Australians ended up bearing the cost of bureaucratic failure.

TommyP says:

11:57am | 14/02/12

No one seems too fussed about Howard WASTING billions of TAXPAYER dollars, all in the name of vote buying.  But, I suppose, he was able to also sell off a multitude of assets and replenish the coffers he raided, and, then beat his chest in truimph, having established a “surplus”.  What’s worse is the amount of fools who fell for the rhetoric, and today keep harping on with the same tripe!

maria says:

12:43pm | 14/02/12

As long as the people will be denied of their democratic rights as it is nothing will change our system of mafiacracy, the victims of crimes will be irelevant as the people are in any phoney democracy after each election.

The mafoisis will rule and make any kind of laws regardless of the people.

Only with a true system of democracy a la Switzerland in which ONLY the people are sovereign with the same democratic right as the swiss citizen has the right to repeal or change any laws via a petition that we will have a better system without any preferences at we have now.

In a meantime there’s a bunch of anti-social scumbags out there laughing at a system that too often does nothing to challenge woeful behaviour.

As a woman of courage with honesty I hope that Pauline will come back at the next election with one message and one policy a true system of democracy a la Switzerland than you’ll see whi are the true scumbags or the funnel web spiders ready to bite her with thir venomous poison.

Mikeymike says:

12:06am | 15/02/12

@ Maria - you’ll want to be looking at Senators Online.  Closest thing in Australia to what you’re looking for.

mr mcgoo says:

05:07pm | 15/02/12

Finally someone calling it as it is.
tightening the laws on those of us doing the right thing has no effect on gun crime. (It can be argued it makes things easier for crims and normal people might be tempted to use the blackmarket to get that hunting rifle - giving it some sort of legitimacy).
Keep Law abiding firearms owners in the system and get tough on the crims - not targets shooters or hunters

MarkS says:

07:54am | 14/02/12

Independent & unaccountable mean two very different things. But somehow people whose job it is to find fine shading of meaning in words are unable to see the difference. They claim they are independent but in practice are unaccountable.

SimonFromLakemba says:

08:04am | 14/02/12

Fair point, but who would be the person to decide whether or not they gave the correct sentence? I think that’s where the main problem will be.

Mahhrat says:

09:03am | 14/02/12

@Simon: You remove or severly limit the “discretion”.

Let me give you a favourite analogy - Aussie Rules Football versus Assocation Football (soccer).  I love both, though I’m more invested in the latter.

In Aussie Rules, the umpires are not able to effectively enforce the laws provided to them.  The hands in the back rule is a great example.  They’re given no discretion - they see a hand, they MUST pay a free kick.  Of course, they must first see the hand, and they’re only human. In society, the job of “seeing the hand” falls to our police etc; this works well if the judge’s job is simply to say, “Yes, the hands were used”.

In soccer it’s slightly different.  The ref has absolute authority (and able assistant refs), but the laws are far more interpretive, such as “If, in the opinion of the referee, x happened, then y or z can be utilised”.  Refs are protected, because they can just say, “Well, in my opinion x did not merit y, and here’s a fine for arguing about it”.

Both are theoretically effective ways to adjudicate (provided judgments are consistent), though soccer’s method must have (and does have) a much higher standard of qualifications (soccer has professional referees).

The problem with our justice system at the moment is our judges are using the more absolute & interpretive powers of soccer, but without the necessary scrutiny, and despite society setting AFL-style laws.

Given the greater importance of the rule of law in society as opposed to a game, I would suggest nobody “watches the watchers” so much as we remove the discretion.  If X law is broken, then Y is the result.  Now, we can have sliding scales and so on for Y, depending on the crime, but those things should not be down to the discretion of the person who also finds the person guilty of Y.

gobsmack says:

09:38am | 14/02/12

The average person’s view of the judiciary is through the prism of the popular media.
Without a properly informed public, the judiciary would become accountable to the shock jocks and tabloids under any move to “democratise” them.

SimonFromLakemba says:

09:58am | 14/02/12

@Mahhrat

Doesn’t the AG oversee sentences?

I just think at the end of the day no one is ever going to be happy with jail sentences.

SimonfromLakemba says:

09:59am | 14/02/12

@Mahhrat

Doesn’t the AG oversee sentences?

I just think at the end of the day no one is ever going to be happy with jail sentences.

Mahhrat says:

11:30am | 14/02/12

@Simon:  Perhaps, but that’s just one person who’s probably all seven kids of busy and isn’t going to be reading a judge’s report on every single case in the country, eh?

Why not simply limit the discretion?  If you kill a person, you do 25 years, then another judge sees whether you’re fit to return to society.  (I’m plucking figures there).

The thing with sentence cohesion like that is it’ll give the public some expectation, too:

“I might murder my business associate.  I know that if I get caught, I’m done for 25 years minimum.  Might be more than I’m willing to risk” etc.

The problems stem from having a sentence like that argued with, “But, Your Honour, I saw my wife and just lost control and raged out,” or “I’m fookin’ crazy, yo!” or whatever.

That’s fine, there’ s a different place to go maybe, but incarceration still occurs for the requisite time; if you’ve proven yourself capable of the crime, boffins have decided you’re a threat for at least this long, and in the meantime we get you help.

SimonFromLakemba says:

11:52am | 14/02/12

@Mahhrat

True. Minimum sentences should be raised for serious crime, potentially could make a difference.

NYC had a zero tolerance policy for crime and it worked pretty well there. Although Locking every tom dick and harry hasn’t worked that great there either.

I’m a big fan of rehabilitation myself, give companies tax breaks for hiring mid level cons, train them in new area’s because at the moment all we are getting are career criminals once they are released.

DOB says:

12:15pm | 14/02/12

Judges are acountable. Their decisions are appealable. Decisions on sentencing area a complex minefield that few layman have any idea about. To try and explain that system in an article like this would be impossible - you need to read many highly technical academic articles and rules to get any idea of it. As a result most journos (many of whom I would guess are completely unaware of the complexities involved) dont bother. Its far easier just to beat up the issue. The closest Penbo got was saying there should be mandatory penalties. Now thats a foolish idea for many reasons. The most obvious being that it would end up with automaticaly overflowing jails and probably not do anything much anyway. And once the mandatory sentences expire then we’re just back to the same treadmills in and out of jails - only this time with better trained crims coming out of jails. Which criminal judges know because they get to see the results every day while well meaning members of upright society sip their dacquiris and blog genteely about a subject which they know almost nothing about - as you lot are doing.

A couple of facts: judges are acountable. Its called appealing. If the police or prosecutors dont think a sentence is right they appeal it. But most dont waste taxpayers money appealing when they know they’ll lose. Does that tell any of you people anything? Does it suggest to you that perhaps the judge is correctly applying the law?

Second point: ask yourselves this: if the judge is applying the law who made that law? well, judges via precedent mostly, because while there may be a sentence in statute law how you determine an actual sentence withing the range allowable is a matter of precedent.

Third point: who can change the precedents? Well, not trial judges, thats for sure. And since few decisions would be bothered to be appealed to say, the High Court theres little scope for any change in sentencing practices from the courts - court only handle cases brought to them: they do not have the powere to just pronounce laws at random.

So who can fix this problem? Your politicians, thats who. So while you lot are finishing your dacquiris and pointing accusing fingers at the courts maybe you should consider that that is a bit like complaing about a to a council ranger about a speed camera fine. If you want action on this stuff you have to talk to, and about, the people who can actually do something about it and whose job it is to do something about it. Instead you buffoons waste endless hours of your time berating judges for nothing more than doing their jobs in accordance with the law. And then you wonder why nothing changes. Penbo has just sent you all down the garden path - again. But its not his fault because he’s probably not on top of the subject either. Fools, fools, fools, the lot of you. Now, go back to your dacquiris and wait for tomorrow’s blogging topics.

MarkS says:

01:22pm | 14/02/12

@DOB
“Judges are accountable. Their decisions are appealable”

Not true. The fact that a decision is appealable does not make the judge accountable. A judge could have every single decision appealed, found incorrect & still suffer no adverse consequences. So the JUDGE is not ACCOUNTABLE. But the DECISION is APPEALABLE. Even that level of ineffective non-accountability disappears for a High Court judge. 

I am accountable for my work, I stuff up & I am counselled, I keep doing it I will lose my job. A judge has to not do their job; refuse to hand down judgments, sleep during trials etc to lose their job.

There are many whose bias is outrageous. Those of us in the know are aware who they are & what their bias is. There are many ways a biased judge can twist the judgment to make the court of appeal unlikely to overturn the judgment.

Sometimes one can only appeal errors of law not fact, even when one can appeal an error of fact; you have to prove not that the judge was most likely wrong, but that no reasonable judicial officer could have to that conclusion.

Fiddler says:

05:59pm | 14/02/12

DOB, you are being blatantly dishonest here. In order for the police to appeal an inadequate sentence the penalty must be “manifestly inadequate”. Case law exists which effectively states that the penalty must be outside any guidelines which exist.
For an offender to appeal on the sentence being too severe, they simply just have to not like it. This is not even close to a level playing field. I have a level of expertise and am involved in these matters every day. In the local court the number of inadequacy appeals vs severity appeals lodged are in the order of 1:100.

maria says:

06:01pm | 14/02/12

A TRUE MAFIACRACY ......who is going to tell me if this is a democracy as told.

DOB says:

06:45pm | 14/02/12

Fiddler, whats “dishonest ” about that? Thats the law - which was kind of my point. If people dont like it get your pollies to change it - because trial judges cant.

MarkS, dont tell me: youre a law student or a bright eyed law grad, right? Well, go and have a look at the appeal stats. Judges are most definitely accountable for their decisions, If you were as senior as me youd know that. The selection criteria for being a judge generally ensure that non-performers dont get that far - its not like landing a job at Maccas. The only thing is that in the extremely rare cases where judges are not up to the job they dont get fired: they retire gracefully. You getting it now? But you’ll find that there’s few judges who have appeals records on this stuff that are bad enough to warrant action by the relavent chief justice etc… Why is that? Well, because these guys are simply applying the law. Which is what I said in the first damned place. Your comment is so ridiculous I could laugh - are you trying to say that being accountable means that if a judge deosnt make decisions that the public - or you - like (as opposed to “in accordance with the process of the law”) then they should be “held accountable”. Well, there goes the rule of law. What on earth gives you the idea that judges shouldnt have biases and that your biases are better than theirs? THe point is - and I’ll say it slowly this time - that if you dont like a decision then you can appeal it. If an appeal court (3 biases or more!!) doesnt think theres anything wrong with the process applied then youre done. And thats the law. If you dont like the law you should take it up with your p o l i t i c i a n s - because its your politicans’ job to c h a n g e t h e l a w, not the courts’ . A point you seem to have missed in your classes. Ask your tutors about that one.

MarkS says:

08:15am | 15/02/12

@DOB
The good old Ad Homim attack & Call to Authority when your case has been shown to be full of it. No I am not a law student, finished my study of the law some 30 years ago. I have given instructions in thousands of cases.

Nor have you invalided my argument, so some judicial officers retire instead of being subject to the professional distain of their fellow judges. This sword has two very sharp edges that both cut society.

Firstly there are those judicial officers who do not care about the opinion of other judges whom they already loath.

Furthermore for those who do, it creates an insider mindset, do not rock the boat, be part of the inner cabal, have our viewpoint, the acceptable bias, we are different from the rabble that cannot be trusted.

You by your expressed opinions show that you consider yourself one of those high priests of Da Law, never to be questioned by the ignorant masses.

Of course I expect judges being human beings to have their bias, what I find after 30 years of practice to be totally unacceptable is the dishonest way they exploit their position to feed that bias. Rights of appeal are totally useless to combat this; the process is not justice & never can be while the guardians of the process can exploit it.

It is dishonest to say that accountably is impossible without loss of independence. But yes this does mean that the high priests of the law will have to justify themselves to the public. The unqualified masses that the legal profession loves to denigrate at their cocktail parties, the ones I used to attend until they sickened me.

There are ways to make judges accountable, have a look at what many US states such as Missouri do.

Kev says:

03:02pm | 15/02/12

Nothing like losing a case to a Magistrate and then being told afterwards by the court staff “Magistrate **** always rules that way, we think he was involved in a car accident when he was young, you can appeal it to the high court if you have don’t like the outcome (and have thousands of dollars to waste)”. My case was a simple red light camera conviction but the magistrate went so far as to throw out the testimony of the police expect witness to help convict me. So I agree, biased and unaccountable.

Space Ghost says:

06:53am | 14/02/12

It’s against the judiciary undermining the point of the buy back and gun control by being soft on people with illegal guns.

EM says:

11:36am | 14/02/12

The gun buy-back was a crock, as he mentioned.  All it did was take guns off the people least likely to cause trouble with them.

What they need, and what I believe the article supports, is not regulating gun use by the average law abiding citizen, but harsh punishments for scumbag crims with illegal guns - you know, the ones actually in need of control.

Sound pretty bloody logical to me (which is why it’ll never happen)...

TommyP says:

12:27pm | 14/02/12

Spot on EM.  Let me have the right to a fire arm, so long as I abide by the laws under which it is owned.  If those laws are not adhered to, then inflict heavy and severe punishments.  But, DON’T take away my RIGHTS, for the sake of appeasing the loud conservative minority!

Mattb says:

06:08pm | 14/02/12

Brendan says: 06:05am | 14/02/12
Not sure if this article is for or against the buy back

Yeah, I’m with you on that. Is the author saying that because the whole “buy back” has supposedly resulted in the criminals of society in possession of the remaining guns that means we should all re-arm ourselves?.

Or is he simply trying to say, in a roundabout way, that he once had a thing for Pauline Hanson?.....

The other issue many, including the author, have bought up is the bikie and guns issue. I don’t really see this as a big deal for the great majority of the public. They aren’t out to shoot joe public, theyre out to shoot each other and any other criminals that muscle in on their turf. This is by no means condoning their possession of guns just stating the fact that the bulk of the public hasn’t much to fear from them.

The biggest issue I had with the whole “gun buyback” was that it was a knee jerk relation to a massacre and that if another person came along and decided to do a “Martin Bryant” the scheme would mean SFA. They’d more than likely, if they tried hard enough, be able to get their hands on the automatic weapons they needs to commit such an act.

It was yet another example of grandma Howard and his conservative nanny state politics. Just like the asylum seeker issue, he made it a massive issue through his rhetoric, then stood up and said that he’d save us all from this so called ‘invasion’. The man was brilliant at it and the general voting population were dumb enough to fall for it.

TC says:

08:43am | 14/02/12

@cheap white trash,

You took the words right out of my mouth.

Penbo are you serious mate? There was only ever going to be one outcome in the buyback scheme. The honest folk would hand them in, the crooks would hold on to theirs. Even the brain surgeons at One Nation knew that.

What other scenario did you think was going to happen Penbo?

morrgo says:

08:54am | 14/02/12

Nobody in their right mind expected the gun laws to disarm hardened criminals. 

The gun laws were to prevent massacres like Hoddle St and Port Arthur, accidents caused by curious children and domestics resorting to guns.

By all account, the gun laws achieved these objectives.

TommyP says:

01:48pm | 14/02/12

Another Howard apologist.  Thanks Morrgo, but based on the level of gun violence in our society, I don’t care how you spin it.  It was a failure for the Howard Regime.

@cheap white trash —-  Yes, One Nation, along with about 90% of the populace argued this point.  Unfortunately though, Howard was on a mission.  Only problem though was, he and his front bench are the only ones who knew, and to this day know, what that mission was.

morrgo says:

04:58pm | 14/02/12

@TommyP: no matter how much you try to spin it, the statistics prove Howard right.  If you can read and not just write, check out http://www.aic.gov.au/crime_types/violence/weapons/otherdocs.aspx

Space Ghost says:

05:04pm | 14/02/12

@RyaN - When was the last time you didn’t kiss Erick’s arse? Your sucking up in lieu of actual comment is what’s pathetic.

Andrew says:

07:53pm | 14/02/12

BS Tommy P. It wasnt aboyut stopping harden criminals, it was about stopping everyday people getting hold of a gun after a domestic, or a fight and shooting someone, or about a neveryday guy getting hold of a gun and going on a shooting spree at the local supermarket. Go look at before the buyback and see how many people died after a dispute because someone got hold of a gun why still angry. Then see how many die today. Most gun deaths today involve criminals gangs or are from hunting accidents, therefore Howard laws have done exactly what he wanted them to do.

RyaN says:

10:13pm | 14/02/12

@Space Ghost: try to post in the correct thread, as for the rest of your infantile comment, when you want to play with the adults, do let us know.

Space Ghost says:

09:39am | 15/02/12

@RyaN - Browser problems.

Speaking of infantile, kissing Erics arse still isn’t a comment on the topic. When you have something to contribute, do let us know.

RyaN says:

12:00pm | 15/02/12

@Space Ghost: We’ll go with a PEBKAC issue shall we

As for my opinion, having been raised in a war and learning to shoot an uzi at the age of five I am no fan of guns, I am less of a fan of dictating what people can and cannot do with their lives like the commie pigs we were fighting against.

Space Ghost says:

11:09pm | 16/02/12

@RyaN - PEBKAC maybe for you. For sane people browser problems happen.

“As for my opinion”

That’s I’m actually interested, but since you’ve unwedged yourself from Ericks arse for a minute this’ll be good….

“, having been raised in a war and learning to shoot an uzi at the age of five I am no fan of guns, I am less of a fan of dictating what people can and cannot do with their lives like the commie pigs we were fighting against.”

This is Australia mate, please try and keep your loony commie under the bed stuff from escaping.

And to shoot down your “argument” we live in a society. There are plenty of laws that keep us ALL safe. Not everyone agrees with every law, TOUGH LUCK.

RyaN says:

05:09pm | 17/02/12

@Space Ghost: “There are plenty of laws that keep us ALL safe.” you mean like the laws banning kids from flying their kites at the local park, yep those viscous kites are going to kill us all, tough luck to the kids!

There is a law that says no gay marriage, TOUGH LUCK to them too!

Am I on the right level yet?

Space Ghost says:

06:46am | 18/02/12

@RyaN - you don’t get any more sane or less loathsome do you?

Couple of things. 1) I’m really not interested in what a conservative lick spittle with a tenuous grasp on reality has to say on any topic, so don’t waste our time. 2) Anarchy is not an anti-dote to communism it’s just another extreme that we sane people realise is just as dangerous as communism.

TChong says:

07:21am | 14/02/12

SL agree with you about the new age would be 1% Outlaws- , they dont know , or ride cycles
“As for One Nation….”
Because One Nation were a party that deliberately trolled for, and got support from racists and rednecks
“If you see this video , “you’ll know I’m dead ’ said Hanson.
She was an ignorant , irrational conspiracies promoter, who deserved the ridicule she attracted.

MarkS says:

08:09am | 14/02/12

@TChong
It is a good thing that racists & rednecks had a party that spoke for them. That is what democracy is about, letting everybody have their say & the greatest number wins. The best way deal with bullshit like racism is to have it out in the open.

The way that One Nation was attacked by way of violent protestors trying to scare away people & pollies like Abbot being involved in making Hanson a political prisoner was a stain on our society.

I felt so strongly that they were being demonised, just like you are doing now, that despite the fact I thought they were loonies I voted for them in the lower house. Not mind you in the upper house where they might have had a chance of winning.

Damocles says:

09:02am | 14/02/12

TChong, thanks for turning this article about judges and gun control into an unnecessary attack on Pauline Hanson and the One Nation Party, typical of a Labor troll. To put you straight, as you were obviously too caught up with all the manic anti-racist mud slinging frenzy that was generated by all political parties to put a stop to a well supported political alternative. Pauline Hanson and One Nation wanted equality for all…...get it? Equality for all! No preferential treatment if your skin was a different colour. No bias towards anyone whether they be Asian, Aboriginal, African, whoever. But you go along with your force fed, brain washed, blinkered beliefs. While all fair thinking people continue to hope that one day all people will be judged and treated equally not by the colour of their skin or their race, but by their deeds and the content of their character…..(thank you MLK).

TChong says:

09:11am | 14/02/12

MarkS
Agree ,everyone ( keeping in legalities) deserves representation.
But , as you say, you wouldnt want them weilding too much power.( lower house, not upper house)
Why?
because they did represent a fringe element, whose ideas and ideals probaly werent thought all the way through, to how its affects others

Steve says:

11:16am | 14/02/12

@ Damocles “an unnecessary attack on Pauline Hanson and the One Nation Party, typical of a Labor troll”

yet it was Tony Abbott that brought down Pauline Hanson….

Damocles says:

01:34pm | 14/02/12

Hey Steve, did you read what I said….“the manic anti-racist mud slinging frenzy that was generated by all political parties”! I’m not totally targetting Labor, just targetting the Labor troll TChong for swinging the discussion on to another subject, a bit like Gillard does whenever she doesn’t want to answer a difficult question. Like let’s talk about gay marriage…smoke screen/ diversion tactic…..let’s not talk about how much of a debt we’ve run up or the impending Carbon Dioxide Tax on Everything…...let’s talk about this other thing…..and before you get started I have nothing against gay marriage, despite the fact that most heterosexual couples are avoiding marriage like the plague or their marriages are ending in divorce in increasing numbers, I have gay friends and they really couldn’t care either way, like me they’re just enjoying living in a loving relationship.

TommyP says:

02:43pm | 14/02/12

@Damocles—-    What on Earth gave you the implication that TChong is a “Labor hack”???????    Such an attack would imply to me that you are a typical right wing nutter, who hates anything different to him/her self.

Andrew says:

07:58pm | 14/02/12

Tommy P, you are obviously new to this blog and not read chongys posts before if you believe Damocles is being to hard on him, after reading chongys posts over the months I would say Damocles is being way to kind to him.

Erick says:

07:09am | 14/02/12

Any bets on some bigot randomly calling other people “gun nuts” without any cause?

M says:

07:13am | 14/02/12

Which point would that be? That John Howards buy back was a complete and total failure? Or that Judges need to get tough(er) on criminals?

Seeing as Howards buyback hasn’t resulted in any appreciable reduction in gun crime, might we let recreational shooters purchase semi-auto weapons again?

Nah, the anti gun folk would sqeal like pigs at such a suggestion. Best we keep guns outlawed so that only outlaws have guns.

M says:

07:28am | 14/02/12

@ Space Ghost, What’s a gun nut?

TChong says:

07:53am | 14/02/12

M
why would a “recreational “shooter need a semi automatic weapon for?
How does it follow , that not having guns thru out society, ( so we’re not like the US ) somehow equal with “so that only outlaws have guns”?
The laws dont allow it, so how do you make that conclusion ?

Space Ghost says:

07:54am | 14/02/12

@Erick - Constantly pointing out the flaws in your arguments, I must have gotten to you Erick, good.

There’s nothing bigoted in highlighting the fact that there are a certain element of the community who are crazy enough to think that they have the right to bear arms.

Try and adult argument next time Erick.

@M - “That John Howards buy back was a complete and total failure?”

No it was a complete success removing thousands of guns from our community. Bryant wasn’t a bikie, he was a gun nut who snapped.

“Or that Judges need to get tough(er) on criminals?”

Yes that’s the point of the whole article. Gun control being undermined by a weak judiciary that let criminals off with wrist slaps.

“Seeing as Howards buyback hasn’t resulted in any appreciable reduction in gun crime, might we let recreational shooters purchase semi-auto weapons again?”

Being purposely disingenuous M? Why don’t you look at the rate of gun related murders?

“Nah, the anti gun folk would sqeal like pigs at such a suggestion. Best we keep guns outlawed so that only outlaws have guns.”

Only a moron would suggest such a thing. So you can pretend that people like me want guns outlawed except for outlaws but that would be a complete lie. The judiciary need to start putting outlaws with guns away for long stretches.

“@ Space Ghost, What’s a gun nut?”

Someone who values their right to a weapon over our right to be safe from their weapons. And possibly someone who has to misrepresent the argument being made to make their own on the gun issue.

Tatty_Anne says:

08:14am | 14/02/12

M,  correct me if I’m wrong but I was under the impression that Howard’s gun buyback was a kind of kneejerk reaction to Port Arthur and was intended to prevent another mass slaughter by a mentally ill and/or angry indvidual who previously had relatively easy access to certain firearms.

I don’t think it was ever intended to frighten the criminals.  Aren’t we lucky that a psychopathic bikie hasn’t gone on the rampage in a shopping mall with an uzi?

Erick says:

08:18am | 14/02/12

@Space Ghost - It is bigoted to assume that anyone who believes in a right to bear arms is “crazy”. It is bigoted to call people “gun nuts” because they disagree with you.

I’d rather have “gun nuts” running the country, than bigots.

M says:

08:23am | 14/02/12

The howard buy back was supposed to stop people from being shot wasn’t it? How’s that working out so far?

TC Chong, so just because Bryant snapped the rest of the law abiding population is punished? Democracy rules huh?

Steve says:

08:40am | 14/02/12

Space Ghost’s comments in reply just shows what many people suspect: anti-gun activist dislike gun owners (or who they think are gun lovers) as red-necks even more than they dislike the guns.

And Martin Bryant wasn’t a gun-nut who snapped.  He was a severely mentally ill man who was allowed access to guns. 

The spree killings in America are always framed as a gun control issue, rather than as a mental health system failure, because we don’t want to talk about mental illness in a perjorative way.

Space Ghost says:

08:50am | 14/02/12

@Erick - You may think that ignoring my point and playing semantics is a winning argument. Like most of your arguments it’s weak. Although I am amused that someone like you who is first to burst into tears and claim that you’re being picked on has to resort to such weak tactics. Like I said, I must be getting to you and that tickles me.

So I can’t call someone crazy because their values are completely out of line with mainstream Australia? So by your “logic” I couldn’t call pedophiles crazy either.

@M - Our gun crime rates are a tiny fraction of those in the US. Works for me.

“TC Chong, so just because Bryant snapped the rest of the law abiding population is punished? Democracy rules huh?”

Ok now go and whinge to each of the families of the 32 who were slaughtered by that gun nut that your right to have a gun has being infringed.

Erick says:

09:10am | 14/02/12

@Space Ghost - You can call anyone “crazy”. That’s your right to free speech.

But when you call reasonable people “crazy” just because you disagree with some of their opinions, then you reveal yourself as a shallow and bigoted thinker.

morrgo says:

09:19am | 14/02/12

I want to recreationally use a 122 mm howitzer. 
I am well trained with it, why should anyone object?

M says:

09:34am | 14/02/12

Yes Space Ghost, keep at it. Everyone who owns a gun is a frothing at the mouth redneck who hoardes loads of semi-automatic weapons, dresses in surplus military gear and plays soldiers in the bush whilst secretly dreaming of shooting people in Tasmania. There’s no way any of them could be responsible, law abiding citizens.

Perpetuating stereotypes is the way to deal with the issue.

Space Ghost says:

09:35am | 14/02/12

@Erick - and when you ignore and misrepresent my point you reveal yourself as someone with an axe to grind and no real argument.

Space Ghost says:

09:43am | 14/02/12

@Steve

“And Martin Bryant wasn’t a gun-nut who snapped.  He was a severely mentally ill man who was allowed access to guns. “

Ah Steve you can argue all you like over the term “gun nut” but if we had gun control measures in place that we have today Martin Bryant would just be a mentally ill man and there would be 35 who would have survived that day.

“The spree killings in America are always framed as a gun control issue, rather than as a mental health system failure, because we don’t want to talk about mental illness in a perjorative way.”

We can stop people with (or without) mental illnesses getting guns, we can’t stop people from getting mentally ill.

acotrel says:

09:47am | 14/02/12

What I like are the guys who have a fight with the missus, then take the shottie out and clean it in front of her !

Space Ghost says:

10:15am | 14/02/12

@M - Clearly when I refer to gun nuts I’m talking about the very people you describe not describe all people who support guns.

You talk about respectable citizens and yet the key points you’ve raise have largely been misrepresentations of the truth.

Steve says:

11:48am | 14/02/12

Space Ghost

Why should people be banned from getting guns just because you think the risks are too high and you don’t like both guns or the people that own them?

Applying the anti-gun activist’s principle of “Because I don’t like them or their owners and they might be more dangerous”,  I could call for a a ban on all cars with more than 4 cylinders because those V8s and six cylinder cars are only driven by bogans, and they go faster and so cause more innocent deaths.

How about a ban on distilled spirits because I think only bogans drink them and they are much stronger than beers and ciders?

Jet skis banned?  Surfboards banned?  People drown all the time and sharks take surfers.

Stephen says:

12:04pm | 14/02/12

@ Space Ghost, you’re a sad and sorry individual.  Martin Bryant was a mentally disturbed individual who was know to the Tasmanian Police, despite that knowledge on their part he was permitted to access an automatic weapon.  The weapon in question was originally handed in as part of the Victorian gun buy back it was on sold to a licensed gun dealer who sold it as a legal firearm in Tasmania.  The semi automatic firearm in question undoubtedly increased the trauma and suffering of Martin Bryant’s victims but the point is if it were not for the bureaucratic incompetency of the powers in charge it would never have found its way into his possession.  The controls were already in place, it’s a great tragedy for all concerned that they were not followed.  @ acotrel’s; please spare me your bullshit, if you have objective evidence relating to the occurrence you described report it to the police, if its only hearsay please shut up until you can make a civilised contribution.

Paul says:

12:31pm | 14/02/12

@ Acotrel: ‘What I like are the guys who have a fight with the missus, then take the shottie out and clean it in front of her!’

Do you know people like this Acotrel?

PsychoHyena says:

12:48pm | 14/02/12

Okay gun nut in my opinion refers to somebody obsessed with guns, would have thought this would be the initial thought of reasonable-thinking person.

Second: Martin Bryant is mentally ill and had access to a semi-automatic weapon. As has been pointed out: Why does any civilian need access to military-grade and semi-automatic weapons? This is what the gun buyback was about, reducing the number of unnecessary weapons from the community.

Thirdly: I understand that some people need to have access to guns, and that’s fine. I also understand some people like them for sport. However if you are okay about using guns then don’t complain about the enemy having one.

TheRealDave says:

12:51pm | 14/02/12

Exactly Stephen. Control freaks like SpaceGhost seme to miss the point hat controls were already in place and that due to no national scheme,  selective breakdown lack of proper procedures by government officials a menatlly ill man was allowed to have a semi automatic weapon - with predictable results.

Unfortuanltey, its ill-informed twits who think every responsible gun owner is a Martin Bryant waiting to happen.

iansand says:

01:05pm | 14/02/12

Paul - I am one of those people called a lawyer, who lives life in some sort of ivory tower unconnected with base humanity.  At various times I have dabbled in criminal law.  I know of several people who behaved like that.  Of two notable examples, one committed homicide and another was a victim.

Space Ghost says:

01:44pm | 14/02/12

@Steve

“Why should people be banned from getting guns just because you think the risks are too high and you don’t like both guns or the people that own them?”

It’s not just me mate it’s millions of Australians. And I don’t have a problem if you own a fire arm that is kept under lock and key at your gun club.

“Applying the anti-gun activist’s principle of “Because I don’t like them or their owners and they might be more dangerous”,  I could call for a a ban on all cars with more than 4 cylinders because those V8s and six cylinder cars are only driven by bogans, and they go faster and so cause more innocent deaths.”

Now you’re just being silly. It’s got nothing to do with like and dislike. You want to shoot do so through a licensed club. You have no reason to have a gun in your house otherwise, except maybe ego. The safe of those around you is more important than your ego. Sorry.

“How about a ban on distilled spirits because I think only bogans drink them and they are much stronger than beers and ciders?

Jet skis banned?  Surfboards banned?  People drown all the time and sharks take surfers.”

Repeating silly arguments doesn’t make them any less silly.

Space Ghost says:

01:52pm | 14/02/12

@Stephen

“@ Space Ghost, you’re a sad and sorry individual.”

Wow, great argument, and so well thought out. Ok I can play, you’re a moron. Happy?

”  Martin Bryant was a mentally disturbed individual who was know to the Tasmanian Police, despite that knowledge on their part he was permitted to access an automatic weapon.  The weapon in question was originally handed in as part of the Victorian gun buy back it was on sold to a licensed gun dealer who sold it as a legal firearm in Tasmania.”

So in other words there was nothing to stop a person who might have an axe to grind, who might snap or who might be mentally from having a weapon capable of killing 35 innocent people.

And some how you see this as a defense of your right to own guns. Real smart.

”  The semi automatic firearm in question undoubtedly increased the trauma and suffering of Martin Bryant’s victims but the point is if it were not for the bureaucratic incompetency of the powers in charge it would never have found its way into his possession.”

The point is if he did not have that weapon those people WOULD NOT HAVE DIED. FFS.

@TheRealDave

The best control is people not having guns in the first place. And to cry but he was mentally ill, you do realise how large a percentage of the population suffer from mental illness don’t you? Well obviously you don’t because it’s a fairly moronic argument.

Stephen says:

02:37pm | 14/02/12

It isn’t a bad argument actually, your point relating to the possession of the weapon is correct; however your logic and reason is fundamentally flawed.  There were strict systems in place at the time that had they been followed would have prevented him from accessing the weapon; he had been identified as being unstable.  Your not even a good troll, think about it for a moment, the most compelling argument that you have presented thus far for the removal of firearms from public access is the aggressive and unreasoning attitude that you are displaying in you communications.  Sadly its people like yourself that rabbit on about ‘gun nuts’,  ‘rednecks’ and ‘morons’ that inflame and divide what could be a productive discussion.  Your lack of tolerance for other peoples perspective and your inability to present a reasoned argument without denegrating other peoples views are the real danger to our society.

Stephen says:

02:53pm | 14/02/12

@ Space Ghost, by the way I don’t own firearms I work with people who have physical and cognitive disabilities and I’ll stick with my initial assessment, you really are a sad and sorry individual.

TheRealDave says:

03:04pm | 14/02/12

Could you care to explain how its a ‘moronic argument’ that the government should be required to ensure that known mentally ill people should not be allowed access to firearms - of ANY kind.

I’d love to hear it.

Should we also ban any kind of weapon that could be used to kill people - just incase there is someone mentally ill that could use it to kill or injure people??

Knives…bats…screwdrivers….chainsaws…..cars…...scissors…..pillows…...

Paul says:

03:10pm | 14/02/12

@  iansand: ‘Paul - I am one of those people called a lawyer, who lives life in some sort of ivory tower unconnected with base humanity.  At various times I have dabbled in criminal law.  I know of several people who behaved like that.  Of two notable examples, one committed homicide and another was a victim.’

Ian, did you have to defend these people or prosecute them? I’d be interested to know more about these cases and why the said individuals were permitted to maintain firearms licences despite their obviously threatening behaviour in a domestic setting.

I’m guessing that of the two notable examples you mention, one shot his wife following a domestic and the other was shot by his wife out of fear. Also, did the crimes occur prior to the gun buyback or after and were crimes committed by licenced firearms holders with licenced firearms. Some perspective would be appreciated as clearly criminal lawyers on both sides do not live in ivory towers.

Space Ghost says:

04:06pm | 14/02/12

@Stephen - I presented a perfectly reasoned argument.

You can’t commit gun crimes if you don’t have access to a gun.

The gun buy back removed thousands of guns from society that had no business being there. As Steve already pointed out Bryant’s weapons were perfectly legal. Had he not had them then 35 lives would not have ended that day.

Your’s is the flawed argument.

” by the way I don’t own firearms I work with people who have physical and cognitive disabilities and I’ll stick with my initial assessment, you really are a sad and sorry individual.”

Your opinion of me is irrelevant. As is my opinion that your need to get personal before attempting to make your weak arguments brands you a moron.

@TheRealDave
“Could you care to explain how its a ‘moronic argument’”

Because no guns means no gun crime.

” that the government should be required to ensure that known mentally ill people should not be allowed access to firearms - of ANY kind.”

Mental illness can strike anyone so pretending that this is a failure of government for not protecting us against a mentally ill person is moronic. And lets not forget that someone who snaps and shoots their family is hardly likely to be diagnosed as mentally ill on the basis of one act.

“Should we also ban any kind of weapon that could be used to kill people - just incase there is someone mentally ill that could use it to kill or injure people??

Knives…bats…screwdrivers….chainsaws…..cars…...scissors…..pillows…...”

What’s the word for more than moronic?

Could Bryant have killed 35 people in Tasmania with any of those weapons? Do people who snap and attack their family with those sorts of weapons kill as quickly and successfully as those with semi-automatic weapons? And if you’re stupid enough to say yes why haven’t the armed forces adopted say “pillows”?

RyaN says:

04:36pm | 14/02/12

@Space Ghost: sorry, I’d have to agree with Erick, your statement is entirely bigoted towards something YOU don’t like, the rest of your arguments are more pathetic than a playground argument.

iansand says:

05:32pm | 14/02/12

Paul - The circumstances are irrelevant.  There are people who behave in the way described.  Yes, it was before the buyback but enforcement of gun laws was, and may still be, notoriously lax.

I don’t understand, and you probably don’t, how pervasive and controlling fear can be in domestic circumstances.  All I know is that people under the thrall of fear do, or fail to do, the darndest or most obvious things.

Stephen says:

05:49pm | 14/02/12

@ Space Ghost :  I think that you are missing the point of the dialogue; I believe that the article and discussion concerns illegal possession of firearms and the effectiveness of the systems and processes that are in place to restrict access to them.  Your argument lacks relevance as removing legal firearms would not solve the problem, to be effective controls against illegal possession of firearms would need to be enforced.  In the instance relating to Port Author these controls existed but weren’t applied even though he had been identified as posing a risk to society.  As a result Martin Bryant was able to access what was at that time a legal firearm in Tasmania, the point if you would care to take the time to analyse the situation is why was he was allowed to obtain the weapon when he been identified as a risk,  please note that it could have just as easily been an illegal firearm.  If the systems and processes that were in place at the time had been used the tragedy may not have occurred.  Your entitled to your opinion as am I,  however your comments through out the forum have not been the reasoning of a rational individual.  If you can not look objectively at what has been written then you have my sympathy, if you can not reason your not relevant.

Stephen says:

06:07pm | 14/02/12

@ Space Ghost: Sadly I don’t really know whether your just trolling, being deliberately obtuse or you genuinely can not see and rationalise the arguments presented.  If you genuinely can not understand and provide a reasoned response then I apologise and you have my sympathy, this is obviously a passionate issue for you.  If not I’ve wasted enough time feeding your ego, I’m afraid your going to have to find your relevance elsewhere.

Space Ghost says:

07:58am | 15/02/12

@RyaN - you agree with Erick on everything, therefore your agreement and lack of actual comment on topic are both irrelevant.

@Stephen

You are wrong, Port Arthur forced law changes. Clearly you should know what you’re talking about before embarking on long rants to bring others to task.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/slow-erosion-of-gun-laws-presages-another-tragedy-20110427-1dwmx.html

PS. Your personal comments say more about you than about me.

Stephen says:

10:06am | 15/02/12

@ Space Ghost;  One last effort, you are correct in that the tragedy did lead to national uniform firearms legislation; however Martin Bryant held a current Tasmanian firearms licence despite being identified as unstable and being under police investigation at the time.  My reasoning is that if he had not had a Legal firearms licence then he would not have been able to access the weapon which he bought legally from a licensed fire arms dealer who had obtained it from the Victorian Police who had acquired it during a gun but back.  While the tragedy may not have been avoided it may have been mitigated, if the Victorian Police had destroyed the weapon rather than on selling it to recover costs or the Tasmanian Police had revoked Martin Bryant’s Firearms Licence and removed any other weapons from his possession.  The systems that were in place at the time were not administered correctly, much the same way as the systems and processes that are currently in place are at times subject to poor administration.  So you see from my perspective the simplistic solution that you propose is flawed, I believe that it will not deter criminals from obtaining firearms for illegal purposes, however I do agree it will help to remove firearms from domestic situations, but to be honest in those situations firearms are not an essential ingredient for loss of life.  I can see that it is an emotive issue with you and I will leave it at that.

Space Ghost says:

11:20am | 15/02/12

@Stephen

I’ll put this point form for you, so you can keep up.

1. Yes I was right Bryant had a legal gun and what he did forced law changes. I see you have shifted position yet again so that your ego has a leg to stand on.

2. Your ridiculous what if situations are meaningless. The facts are that Bryant had legal access to those weapons. Police aren’t doctors and doctors are police, it would be impossible to stop a similarly mentally Ill person from obtaining deadly weapons if they were legal because of insidious way that mental illness can strike. Often family members don’t realised until it is too late.

3. Bryant was not a crim, he did not obtain weapons illegally nor did he need them in any sort of criminal enterprise. Your analogy here is beyond silly. He was a sick man with a gun fetish who LEGALLY bought weapons before he snapped.

4. Prohibition works perfectly well because your average person has no burning need, desire or use for a gun. This protects us from most, and particularly mentally sick people like Bryant or a tooled up family member who snaps

5. Where we are being let down is by a weak judiciary handing out wrist slaps to the very few in our society, the crims.

Read slowly, think and the respond.

Stephen says:

01:30pm | 15/02/12

To be truthful I’ve not shifted ground I’ve just elaborated on the argument and tried to put in a simple r context that I’d hoped you would understand.  Points 1,3,and 5 I’ve already agreed with in previous posts, what you can not seem to grasp is that Martins condition was not a recent manifestation, he didn’t just snap.  If provisions of the firearms regulations that had been introduced into Tasmania in 1993 were adhered to he wouldn’t have had a licence, ergo he wouldn’t have had access to the weapon.  They are not really what if situations, just plain statements of fact, your point 4 relating to prohibition, can you tell me where its worked in the past in a Western Democracy, there have been several examples in communist or socialist states that worked for a time but in the end they have been unsustainable .  Your introduction of point 5 is interesting as well as you have not bothered to address that issue anywhere in your previous arguments.  Now , if you really want something to worry about other than firearms I suggest that you look up the work of John B. Calhoun, in particular his model of the ‘Mouse Universe’ not jesting or having a go at you with this it relates to societal violence.  Have a good day..

Dr McKay says:

02:03pm | 15/02/12

My turn

2. But he WAS identified and someone dropped the ball.  Systems can be foolproof on paper but will NEVER be 100%
3. No, but he was not a fit and proper person to own a gun, this was obvious to the Tasmanian police already.
4. Yeah, and prohibition of alcohol in the US worked great, lowlife scum became national heroes, crims ruled, yet people still drank. 
5. Yes we are, we are also being let down by our own complacency and desire to outsource our security to the government.  The US right to bear arms is less about gun nuts and more to do with ensuring the people ALWAYS have a recourse against a corrupt government.  But I guess in your Star Trek inspired world this would never happen eh?  You don’t cut off your nose to spite your face.
Try enforcing stronger customs laws and stopping the illegal firearms from getting here.  That would achieve a lot more.

Space Ghost says:

11:03am | 16/02/12

@Dr McKay

“2. But he WAS identified and someone dropped the ball.  Systems can be foolproof on paper but will NEVER be 100%”

Exactly. Even with better systems someone will inappropriate will always get far more easily if they are legal than if they are prohibited.

“3. No, but he was not a fit and proper person to own a gun, this was obvious to the Tasmanian police already.”

Doesn’t matter he still had one. 35 people died because a bureaucracy failed. If he doesn’t have a gun he doesn’t kill 35 people. Simple as that.

“4. Yeah, and prohibition of alcohol in the US worked great, lowlife scum became national heroes, crims ruled, yet people still drank.”

Guns and alcohol are entirely different propositions. You’re comparing apples and oranges. But prohibition has worked here, you only have to compare gun crime rates, murder rates and when was the last time we had some one go on a rampage with a gun? Bryant.
  
“5. Yes we are, we are also being let down by our own complacency and desire to outsource our security to the government.  The US right to bear arms is less about gun nuts and more to do with ensuring the people ALWAYS have a recourse against a corrupt government.  But I guess in your Star Trek inspired world this would never happen eh? “

What the F*** are you talking about. Firstly stick your insults champ. We live in a free western democracy, if you think that having everyone tool up makes us safe from bad government but some how doesn’t put us at risk from ratbag groups forming their own government it’s not me whose living in a fantasy world.

“ You don’t cut off your nose to spite your face. Try enforcing stronger customs laws and stopping the illegal firearms from getting here.  That would achieve a lot more.”

Another idiotic comment. Where do I say we shouldn’t stop them getting here. The judiciary should also come down hard on anyone caught with illegal guns.

Space Ghost says:

11:04am | 16/02/12

@Stephen

“To be truthful I’ve not shifted ground I’ve just elaborated on the argument and tried to put in a simple r context that I’d hoped you would understand.  “

Bullshit. For a start…
You started with a personal attack you shifted away from that.
You claimed that there were provisions in place that could or should have stopped Bryant or would stop a future Bryant depending on where you were in the argument.
You claimed that the Port Arthur massacre led to no legal changes you shifted away from that.

“Points 1,3,and 5 I’ve already agreed with in previous posts, what you can not seem to grasp is that Martins condition was not a recent manifestation, he didn’t just snap. “

I didn’t say it was a recent or quick manifestation. But until the day he snapped and turned sick fantasy into reality he was just another one of hundreds of thousands of people around the country with some form of mental illness. Some get worse, some get better, some get treatment and some don’t, some recover and some don’t.  But the fact is he had not done anything requiring him to be locked up and possibly not even disarmed (under the law).

“If provisions of the firearms regulations that had been introduced into Tasmania in 1993 were adhered to he wouldn’t have had a licence, ergo he wouldn’t have had access to the weapon. “

Here we go, now you’re back to “if”. Either the provisions where there or they weren’t. But either way it doesn’t matter. Because it all comes down to bureaucracy. If guns are legally obtainable then there will be people like Bryant who slip through the cracks for whatever reason. The only protection we have is that those people can’t get those weapons legally.

“ They are not really what if situations, just plain statements of fact, your point 4 relating to prohibition, can you tell me where its worked in the past in a Western Democracy”

You’re mixing gun prohibition with alcohol and drug prohibition, which is convenient if you have no argument but it’s comparing apples and oranges. People what, desire, need and use drugs and alcohol in way they never do with guns. And for where has prohibition worked, well here? Our murder and gun crime rate is a fraction of that in the states and when was the last massacre we had? Where as there’s a multiple shooting ever week in the states.

“, there have been several examples in communist or socialist states that worked for a time but in the end they have been unsustainable .  Your introduction of point 5 is interesting as well as you have not bothered to address that issue anywhere in your previous arguments. “

Point 5 was the point of the article FFS and I have said on this thread repeatedly that the only problem with gun control in this country is that we’re being let down by a judiciary who is handing out wrist slaps to the TINY percentage of crims who actually have guns. If the judges start putting these guys away for long stretches then the risk of carrying illegal guns for even these few makes us all safer.

“Now , if you really want something to worry about other than firearms I suggest that you look up the work of John B. Calhoun, in particular his model of the ‘Mouse Universe’ not jesting or having a go at you with this it relates to societal violence.  Have a good day.. “

Talk about irrelevant misdirection from the point of this debate.

Stephen T says:

12:14pm | 16/02/12

@ Space Ghost:  My initial summary of your character was based on your previously posted comments. Bullshit? Something you would be more than acquainted with I’m afraid.  You have classified me as a firearm owner thus the enemy and you still haven’t taken the time to read and understand what I’d actually written.  Either that or your bias or some undiagnosed psychosis renders you incapable of it.
Point 4:  Sorry you’ve failed mind reading 101, I actually wasn’t thinking of that at all sorry.
Point 5: It took a bit of finding your references were buried in vitriol, but yes you did mention it twice, most of your other comments were either abusive accusing RyanN of ‘kissing Eriks Arse’ or an aggressive defence of your opinion. 
Now lets make it as simple as possible for you, taking your own oft repeated comment “So in other words there was nothing to stop a person who might have an axe to grind, who might snap or who might be mentally from having a weapon capable of killing 35 innocent people.” Think about it for a moment, reread Dr McKays point 2, sit down and count to ten, there was a system in place that would have prevented the tragedy, it was not administered correctly!
My reference to John B. Calhoun was more oriented at your behaviour than the topic in question.

Space Ghost says:

03:24pm | 16/02/12

@Stephen - “My initial summary of your character was based on your previously posted comments. Bullshit? “

Your initial summation of my character based on not actually knowing or having met me was neither warranted, required, correct, nor relevant. It only highlights a level of arrogant stupidity.

“You have classified me as a firearm owner thus the enemy and you still haven’t taken the time to read and understand what I’d actually written.”

I haven’t classified you at all, I don’t give a toss about you, I’ve attacked your arguments and returned your conceit in commenting on my character with contempt.

“Either that or your bias or some undiagnosed psychosis renders you incapable of it.”

This is what makes you a moron. You could have kept to the facts debated the issues but you made it personal and like most of your ilk are mightily offended when serve is returned.

“Point 4:  Sorry you’ve failed mind reading 101, I actually wasn’t thinking of that at all sorry.”

Then why say this at all?

“your point 4 relating to prohibition, can you tell me where its worked in the past in a Western Democracy”

Either you’re referring to the prohibition of alcohol and drugs or you’re just stupid enough to say that gun prohibition has failed in a gun free society that has gun crime rates that are a fraction of in the only gun owning society that actually reflects ours, the US. Either argument is dumb you choose which one you want to hang your hat on this time.

“Point 5: It took a bit of finding your references were buried in vitriol, but yes you did mention it twice, most of your other comments were either abusive accusing RyanN of ‘kissing Eriks Arse’ or an aggressive defence of your opinion. “

Guys like RyaN (a serial offender) and yourself seem to think that you can spit hate without it being returned. What colour is the sky in your world? I see you’re getting more away from the topic where you’re losing and getting more towards the personal, where you started, surprise, surprise.

“Now lets make it as simple as possible for you, taking your own oft repeated comment “So in other words there was nothing to stop a person who might have an axe to grind, who might snap or who might be mentally from having a weapon capable of killing 35 innocent people.” Think about it for a moment, reread Dr McKays point 2, sit down and count to ten, there was a system in place that would have prevented the tragedy, it was not administered correctly!”

FFS. Whilst I’m pleased your special workshop allows you access to commuters it’s boring that changing tacks (apparently now there were systems in place that failed) when these arguments have already been shot down.

Now you read slowly and take a big deep breath anr get someone clever to explain this to you: REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THERE WHERE SYSTEMS IN PLACE THEY STILL FAILED AND 35 PEOPLE DIED BECAUSE A SICK MAN HAD LEGAL ACCESS TO A DEADLY WEAPON! BECAUSE BEAURACRACIES ALWAYS FAIL AT SOME POINT!

“My reference to John B. Calhoun was more oriented at your behaviour than the topic in question.”

I’m not even slightly interested in your off topic misdirection/personal attack.

And if you’re upset at my tone here’s a tip, next time you think you have something to contribute (unlikely I know) to a topic don’t assume that you get to lead out with a personal insult and then be treated with respect because guess what, you’re only likely to get treated with the contempt you’ve earned.

Stephen T says:

03:53pm | 16/02/12

@ Space Ghost: There is no point trying to conduct a dialogue with a zealot; your adherence to your dogma and propensity to demonise anything that is not consistent with your view is pointless and self-serving.  Through out your dialogue your primary argument has centred on prohibition of firearms ‘No Guns No Crime’ a simplistic and puerile exercise.  You do realise that I’ve not once argued that the national firearms legislation was a bad thing, check my comment, 07:40pm | 14/02/12. The bright side is that it’s your problem, and your antics have reminded me to update the psych checks for positions in my department. My only real concern at this point is if you somehow manage to get into a position with some authority.

Stephen T says:

04:03pm | 16/02/12

@Space Ghost: As an aside I would really recommend that you undertake some form of anger management counselling.  Your response borders on the irrational, don’t bother reposting we can catch up in another forum.

Space Ghost says:

05:12pm | 16/02/12

@Stephen

” Stephen T says: 04:53pm | 16/02/12
@ Space Ghost: There is no point trying to conduct a dialogue with a zealot; your adherence to your dogma and propensity to demonise anything that is not consistent with your view is pointless and self-serving. “

My arguments have nothing to do with dogma, zealotry or any other bullshit you want to dream up and everything to do with A) having a winning argument and B) refusing to budge from that argument UNLESS you can come up with a BETTER ARGUMENT.

At no stage have you come up with a better argument, although you’ve continued to get personal and continued to pretend that’s my problem.

Presumably because you can’t come up with a better argument, you lose.

” Through out your dialogue your primary argument has centred on prohibition of firearms ‘No Guns No Crime’ a simplistic and puerile exercise.”

At NO stage have I said that. That you’re now making up arguments I haven’t made which makes your argument the puerile one. I have said NO GUNS NO GUN CRIME. Big difference.

”  You do realise that I’ve not once argued that the national firearms legislation was a bad thing, check my comment, 07:40pm | 14/02/12.”

You haven’t consistently argued anything, as I’ve already pointed out.

” The bright side is that it’s your problem, and your antics have reminded me to update the psych checks for positions in my department. My only real concern at this point is if you somehow manage to get into a position with some authority”

You seem to think your opinion is important to me, it is not.

You started this “conversation” with a personal insult, it is you who has issues. Even more so that you think you can start a conversation with an insult and then be taken treated with respect that you don’t yourself think you have to show.

“@Space Ghost: As an aside I would really recommend that you undertake some form of anger management counselling.  Your response borders on the irrational, don’t bother reposting we can catch up in another forum.”

This is no aside, this is the crux of your position. You’ve badly lost the argument and now I’m be bad guy for refusing to budge from a sensible position in the face of vacuous alternatives and insults presented by you.

You lose.

PS. Don’t bother posting to me in another forum unless you a) can do so with the same respect you expect to receive b) actually have a sensible, consistent opinion to offer.

The Other Martin says:

09:29am | 14/02/12

Gangsters run a much increased risk of death every day. Why are they going to be afraid of a policeman or a judge? They can afford very good lawyers. Address the root cause, not the symptoms. The root cause of this is ‘illegal’ drugs. Legalise the drugs and the whole problem goes away. Don’t want the problems of legal drugs - don’t take them.

Sarah says:

07:38am | 14/02/12

Craig, to make it more understandable for you:

You’re right, the laws have made it more difficult for people who need guns, like farmers and sports shooters, to get them. But that is all that they have done.

They have made no difference to the number and availability of illegal guns. That’s the point - the laws only negatively affected the legal shooters. They had no effect on illegal ones.

A hell of a lot of effort was wasted making life hard for the average shooter and his bolt-action .22 while completely failing to do anything about Glock pistols being available in Bankstown.

Chnaging laws only affect those who follow the laws. The way to crack down on illegal firearm use is heavy policing and strong judicial responses to people carrying and using illegal weapons, not extending the cooling-off period for licence applications before you can shoot targets at Hornsby range.

metallicahead says:

07:39am | 14/02/12

The type and style of guns available also underwent change. I’m not the right person to ask for the specifics, but I think things like the maximum number of rounds changed. According to Wikipedia, the “1996 Buyback took 600,000 newly illegal sporting firearms”, which means that 600 000 guns that weren’t illegal in 1995 were in 1996.

Craig says:

01:38pm | 14/02/12

Sarah, I don’t disagree with what you say, especially about cracking down on illegal gun use but I think like many things in life, the solution to the problem involves a multi-dimensional approach and one of these is to make legal firearms more difficult to get. Why do we want to go down America’s path where every Tom, Dick & Harry has a gun in the house. Regarding illegal weapons, I would suggest imposing harsh custodial sentences on anyone caught in possession of them (jncluding illegal guns and knives).

Marc says:

07:53am | 14/02/12

“Let me see if I get this - we can’t track illegal firearms so are going to track legal bullets?”

Well Duh, cause clearly it’s farmers and sport shooters that are shooting up Western Sydney.

iansand says:

08:39am | 14/02/12

At the moment I can walk into a gun shop and buy bullets for any gun, legal or illegal.  The proposed changes in the law , if I understand them correctly, will require me to prove that I am the legal owner of a gun which those bullets will fit.  That seems, to me, to be a sensible restriction.  A gun without bullets is merely a club.

M says:

09:39am | 14/02/12

How do you think the legislation will be enforced? Is every gun store in the country going to keep a list of registered shooters and what firearms they own? Who would update such a list? Who would have access to such a list? Who would prevent the list falling into the hands of criminals who would have a list of guns and adresses from which to steal them from?

And exactly how is this law supposed to stop gun crime? You think people with illegal guns use legally aquired ammunition? Get a grip, and a clue.

Sure, sounds like a fantastic idea in theory.

iansand says:

10:10am | 14/02/12

M - I would have thought that presenting a licence might be a start.

I bow to your greater knowledge of the criminal milieu in relation to the other matters.  I have no idea how criminals get their ammunition, but shops are pretty convenient.

iansand says:

10:13am | 14/02/12

M - I would have thought that presenting a licence might be a start.

I bow to your greater knowledge of the criminal milieu in relation to the other matters.  I have no idea how criminals get their ammunition, but shops are pretty convenient.

murph says:

10:16am | 14/02/12

@iansand - “At the moment I can walk into a gun shop and buy bullets for any gun, legal or illegal.” 

Not unless you’ve got a current firearms licence. Herein lies the crux of the argument. It’s only the people who aren’t breaking the law at the moment who are affected. There are already laws for having illegal firearms, a bit more stringently applied policing to these laws would suffice.

murph says:

10:16am | 14/02/12

@iansand - “At the moment I can walk into a gun shop and buy bullets for any gun, legal or illegal.” 

Not unless you’ve got a current firearms licence. Herein lies the crux of the argument. It’s only the people who aren’t breaking the law at the moment who will be affected. There are already laws for having illegal firearms, a bit more stringently applied policing to these laws would suffice.

Donny says:

11:56am | 14/02/12

@iansand - At the moment I can walk into a gun shop and buy bullets for any gun, legal or illegal.

Interesting comment.  I am a member of a target shooting club. At this time I can not purchase ammunition for any firearm without presenting a valid firearms licence first.

TheRealDave says:

01:32pm | 14/02/12

@iansand - Ahh no you can’t. As I am in the process of joining a club and aquiring a handgun license - I shoot with a mates handgun. He loads his own rounds and provides the ammo I shoot from his handgun. I cannot walk down to the gunshop down the road and buy 9mm ammunition to repay him or shoot on the night - because you need a valid license to purchase ammunition.

iansand says:

02:28pm | 14/02/12

Then I am curious about why Premier O’Farrell announced this reform.  Are the laws different in different states, or was O’Farrell full of piss and wind?

iansand says:

02:31pm | 14/02/12

OK - Looks like a grandstanding politician talking bullshit misled me - I should have known better.  Section 65, NSW Firearms Act http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fa1996102/s65.html

My apologies.

Erick says:

08:03am | 14/02/12

@SteveKAG - I don’t think the current system is working satisfactorily.

Judges are all former lawyers, who are overseen by other judges or other lawyers. There needs to be more community input.

Some possibilities include elected judges, limited terms, non-lawyer judges, and of course the ability for voters to recall a judge. The abolition of ‘contempt of court’ for criticising a judge’s decision is also a vital reform.

M says:

08:14am | 14/02/12

Men over the age of 18 in Switzerland are required by law to own a Gun, practice regularly, and hold a certain amount of ammunition on their property at all times (500 rounds from memory), yet they have one of the lowest rates of gun crime in the world. England has banned most guns including pistols and has one of the highest rates of gun crime in the world.

Just because you ban guns doesn’t mean the community is safer.

Space Ghost says:

08:40am | 14/02/12

@M - that is completely bullshit misrepresentation of the situation in Switzerland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

“The Swiss army has long been a militia trained and structured to rapidly respond against foreign aggression. Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training, usually at age 20 in the Rekrutenschule (German for “recruit school”), the initial boot camp, after which Swiss men remain part of the “militia” in reserve capacity until age 30 (age 34 for officers). Each such individual is required to keep his army-issued personal weapon (the 5.56x45mm Sig 550 rifle for enlisted personnel and/or the 9mm SIG-Sauer P220 semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home. Up until October 2007, a specified personal retention quantity of government-issued personal ammunition (50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm) was issued as well, which was sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unauthorized use had taken place.[4] The ammunition was intended for use while traveling to the army barracks in case of invasion.

In October 2007, the Swiss Federal Council decided that the distribution of ammunition to soldiers shall stop and that all previously issued ammo shall be returned. By March 2011, more than 99% of the ammo has been received. Only special rapid deployment units and the military police still have ammunition stored at home today.[5]”

Your argument in favour of gun ownership is particularly weak if you have to rely on such transparent misrepresentations of the truth to make a point.

iansand says:

09:21am | 14/02/12

I agree, Erick.  More community input would be a good thing.

All research I have ever seen shows that when confronted with all the facts community members give more lenient sentences than judges currently hand down.  I would be all in favour of community representatives being given all the facts on controversial sentences and reporting to the community.  It will reveal that, for whatever reason, our media are grossly misleading us but anything that makes the media more accountable is also a good thing.

MarkF says:

01:04pm | 14/02/12

@iansand…don’t know about the research but if I was on a jury with all the evidence and they tried the I was drunk, drugged or come from a low socio economic background rubbish so I’m not responsible bull, then I would slap them hard.

If you can’t tell right from wrong then excuses don’t count.  Punishment is the only option.

iansand says:

01:58pm | 14/02/12

We should never let research get in the way of ignorance.  Whatever would happen to the Internet if we did?

I can assure you of two things:

-that research, consisting of several separate studies, confirms that judges give harsher sentences than most lay people when lay people have all of the facts that the judge has.

- that any reports of sentencing proceedings in the media are at best incomplete and frequently downright misleading.  If you are basing your opinions of sentences on what you read or hear in the media (particularly the lower levels of sensationalism)  your opinions are based on incomplete information.

Waz says:

02:07pm | 15/02/12

@Space Ghost.

You are the one misrepresenting the facts. This only relates to military-supplied ammunition.  The only restiction on private ammunition purchase is that the name of the purchaser is recorded at the point of sale.

Space Ghost says:

08:27pm | 15/02/12

I’m not misrepresenting anything Waz. I didn’t say that there was a restriction on private sales.

It’s M who has misrepresented Switzerland as a gun free society with low gun crime rates when this is not the case.

Waz says:

01:48pm | 16/02/12

@ Space Cadet

BS. You implied that, although armed, they don’t have access to ammunition.

“Only special rapid deployment units and the military police still have ammunition stored at home today.[5]”

That is not true. It is only ammunition supplied to them by the military. They can purchase their own without restriction. So they are the most heavily armed(weapons supplied by the military) - have free access to purchase ammunition; and yet have one of the lowest violent crime rates in the world.

Stop the lies.

LC says:

10:09pm | 16/02/12

@Space Ghost,

The one talking bullshit is you.

The restrictions applied to the ammunition for military firearms distributed to them from the government. Now only government subsided ammunition is only available at firing ranges with the condition it’s used there. They can still purchase their own without it being a crime from a store, but they have to register it, and presumably, pay more for it. After their time serving in the militia is up, they have the option to retain the weapon, but it must be first be sent back to the factory to be converted to semi-auto only. Hunters are exempt from any government restrictions. Perfectly reasonable and sound restrictions.

And according to police statistics, in 2006 there were 34 killings or attempted killings involving firearms versus 69 cases involving bladed weapons and 16 cases of unarmed assault, 89 and cases of assault resulting in bodily harm numbered versus 526 with bladed weapons.

All the above information was taken from the very source you linked.

Space Ghost says:

11:32am | 17/02/12

@Waz and LC - How stupid do you have to be to take information from a source that I LINKED and then accuse me of misrepresenting the truth?

I didn’t link that source and say “but hey don’t read it” or “hey only read the bits that I want you to”, I LINKED IT so that people could read it for themselves if they wanted to.

And you two clowns carry about the fact that the Militia can buy ammo you don’t at any stage point out that they don’t actually have to or that many would just stick the bloody gun in the top of the cupboard and forget about it until called to duty?

So why isn’t that omission a lie or a misrepresentation of the truth but my not explicitly stating that the militia can buy ammo is?

Idiotic.

The real misrepresentation is to compare an armed militia with a gun free society and say see they have similar gun crime rates. Crap.

The only real comparison is between us and the US. We have gun control and a fraction of the gun crime that the US a similar society has without gun control.

LC says:

01:18am | 18/02/12

Please point out where Waz or I said they’re obliged to buy ammo. Hell, I even said they aren’t obliged to even keep their weapon after their time in the militia is up.
Please point out where I said the US’s model was the ideal one to follow. In theory, it could work, but with the socio-economic woes of US society (no social safety nets encourages crime) and the attitudes of the people (“we’re given the right to carry guns to kill other people and stick it to the man! It’s right there, in our constitution”) and the fact that they treat gun ownership as a right, and not a privilege like having a license to drive a car, it isn’t going that well for them. Impose their laws on a country with Swiss attitudes (where it’s all about the precision shooting of an apple off someone’s head), and maybe it could work. Maybe it won’t, but we will likely never find out.
Additionally, I SWORE I implied the Swiss model (right down to attitude/cultural changes that keep it going strong), or a variant of it, was the best way to go.

Right now if we implemented the US’s system, because we are so culturally close to them we would likely encounter some of the same problems, but because our social safety nets are many times stronger than theirs, and because we are not likely to get any bill of rights ingrained into our constitution, much less the “right” to own a gun, we wouldn’t see them on such a grand scale. Basically, we would have gun crime statistics that are better than the US, but worse than the Swiss.
On the other hand, if we took up the Swiss attitude towards firearms and then gradually introduced the Swiss system, it would be as effective here as it is there. Biologically, we are the same people. There is nothing in the Australian physique or the Swiss that makes us more likely to abuse the privilege.

And yes, you are being intellectually dishonest. Because by putting in:
“Each such individual is required to keep his army-issued personal weapon (the 5.56x45mm Sig 550 rifle for enlisted personnel and/or the 9mm SIG-Sauer P220 semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home. Up until October 2007, a specified personal retention quantity of government-issued personal ammunition (50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm) was issued as well, which was sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unauthorized use had taken place. The ammunition was intended for use while traveling to the army barracks in case of invasion.
In October 2007, the Swiss Federal Council decided that the distribution of ammunition to soldiers shall stop and that all previously issued ammo shall be returned. By March 2011, more than 99% of the ammo has been received. Only special rapid deployment units and the military police still have ammunition stored at home today.[5]”
But leaving out:
“The government subsidizes the production of military ammunition and then sells the ammunition at cost. Swiss military ammo must be registered if bought at a private store, but need not be registered if bought at a range. Registration consists of entering your name in a log at the time of sale. No serial numbers are present on the individual cartridges of ammunition. Ammunition bought at the range must be used at the range. Ammunition for long gun hunting is not subsidized by the government and is not subject to any sales control. Non-military non-hunting ammunition more powerful than .22 LR (such as custom handgun ammunition) is registered at the time of sale.[11]”
You imply that Militia will only have access to ammunition in the event of a threat to the Swiss’ national safety. We both know that’s not true. Yes, you don’t tell people not to look at your source, but even so, not everyone is going to look at it, whether through lack of time, laziness, or them simply taking your word for it.

Freeman says:

08:53am | 14/02/12

You miss the point, Gobsmack.

the firearms act 96 banned semi auto rifles. so average Joe can’t get one legally, but the crims seem to have no problem accessing them.
(not that average joe should have a semi auto rifle)

Peter says:

08:57am | 14/02/12

Yes, I agree.  Normally Penbo’s article are quite good but I found this one to be just a personal opinion backed up by anecdotes.  Gun buyback has failed.  Ok, why?  Just because there has been a recent rash of shootings in Adelaide? Let’s see the statistics.  Is there really as much gun crime as Penbo says?

Or is the point that Judges are soft?  Personally, I think that’s BS - usually there are very good reasons behind sentencing (they don’t always get it right of course).  Let’s hear them.  What is the other side of such provocative accusations?  Why not interview a defence lawyer or a judge?  Get their side of the story. 

This is the problem with journalism today.  You can get away with stuff like this.  Used to be you had to back up an opinion with solid research and facts.  Not anymore, it would appear.

gobsmack says:

09:33am | 14/02/12

Shotguns and handguns aren’t prohibited, they’re regulated.  You can have one as long as you hold a licence and the firearm is registered.  The penalties mentioned by Mr Penberthy reflect that.
If you want to make the possession of a handgun a major crime, then the best approach would be to ban them outright.

TheRealDave says:

12:54pm | 14/02/12

well depending on your state, as each is different, but in Qld you have to be a member of a sporting club, in good standing (ie be a financial member, pass relevant courses and club shoots and particpate in x number of events per year), to be allowed a handgun.

You don’t just hand in a bit of paper, get a few checks done and go buy a gun.

Stephen says:

06:40pm | 14/02/12

In all fairness I think the the gun buy back worked as it was intended to, at the time military style semi automatics were being sold with military ammunition by most of the major gun shops both in shop and directly to the public in shop, out of the back of trucks at fairs and through mail order.  It was irresponsible and dishonest of the sellers to portray them as having a legitimate sporting use at the time.  In hindsight the buy back and changes to the laws at that time has probably reduced the problems that our society is currently experiencing,  I do believe that those existing laws properly administered and enforced would go a long way to alleviating the current circumstances.  It would be simplistic however to say that removing all firearms to club gun safes would completely remedy the situation.  To my mind the administration and policing of the laws needs to be more disciplined as I believe that due to limited resources and competing needs within police departments there is a certain laxity in the enforcement, I don’t know enough about judicial sentencing arrangements to comment, ahowever I would agree with iansand that media reporting is more than lacking when it comes to honest reporting.

marley says:

08:17am | 14/02/12

No, the issue here is not about guilt or innocence.  The issue here is that, after the police and prosecution have done their job, and the guy has been convicted, the judges choose not to use the full range of sentencing available to them.

ABC says:

09:21am | 14/02/12

That’s the point Marley.  They are not doing the job.  The bikies legislation is a case in point.  The reason that the states have had to have such legislation introduced is the complete failure of policing in relation to organised crime as it relates to bikies.  They are difficult organisations to crack/infiltrate and instead of investing policing resources they are asking governments to introduce legislation that removes from the prosecuting authorities the onus of proving criminality, there just needs to be an inference of criminality.  That’s why the High Court has thrown out such legislation.  It completely removes from the prosecuting authorities the need to provide provable evidence that can be challenged in court.  Essentially it means that “I think you are a criminal because you are hanging abouta with dodgy sorts.  However, I no longer have to prove that you are breaking the law, because we now have this whizz bang legislation which means we don’t have to really prove you are guilty of anything”.

marley says:

12:13pm | 14/02/12

@ABC - this article isn’t about bikie’s legislation and it ‘s not about the police, it’s about the sentences given to people who’ve already been convicted.

The police and prosecution have got the conviction;  it’s up to the judges to assign the penalty.  So the issue isn’t lack of evidence (the case has already been proven) or failure to prosecute (the subject has been convicted) nor about bikie legislation (the convictions are under existing gun laws).  The issue is fair and square whether the sentences being handed down are appropriate.  Your bikie’s point (which I more or less agree with) is irrelevant to this specific argument.  This is about how existing legislation is being applied at sentencing.

ABC says:

01:20pm | 14/02/12

Exactly Marley.  Sit in a courtroom and look at how on regular occassions that the prosecuting authorities miss previous convictions for similar or like offences, or fail in their prosecuting statements to give adequate weight to prior offences.  If these prior offences are not brought before the court, a judge or magistrate is NOT able to take them into account.

al says:

08:27am | 14/02/12

You do realise that your initial statement is rediculous? It would mean banning anything that could be used as a weapon including rocks, sticks, bats, anything that you can hit someone with and cause damage.

NESLIHAN KUROSAWA says:

08:43am | 14/02/12

Hi Al,

Very true & straight to the point!  But “guns do not kill people, people kill people”! I especially meant the very weapons in wrong hands! It all has to with our intentions as always! Kind regards.

Al says:

09:24am | 14/02/12

The other part of your comment that I found a little disturbing was this:
“Such guns & weapons should only have a place in the Armed Forces of Australia only!”
I find that very scary, it means that should a group in the Armed Forces decide they want to perform a coup, they are the only ones with access to weapons (with the exception of members of the Armed Forces who don’t support them).
So who is going to stop them from marching on parliment and executing our government and seizing power?
It may be a distant possibility, but we certainly can’t say it won’t happen as we have seen it happen in many other countries with a highly armed military force with the general population with no recourse to successfully resist them. (Oh and the other armed forces who don’t support them would not be unlikely to take action as the people who give the orders would be the first targeted if they were not involved.)
How would you like living in Australia under a military dictatorship? I know I wouldn’t.

TheRealDave says:

12:57pm | 14/02/12

@Al - mate, this is Australia not the US. We don’t fear a ‘miltiary coup’ or ‘the gubbermint’ as justification for having middle aged grossly obese banjo playing bastards, who couldn’t make it in the real military, running around in the bush in store bought cammies and toting AR15’s.

You embarrass yourself and genuine sporting shooters with such ‘reasoning’.

Al says:

01:53pm | 14/02/12

TheRealDave - did you miss the point where I quoted “Such guns & weapons should only have a place in the Armed Forces of Australia only!”
That means no guns for the police, any sporting shooter, or anyone OTHER than the Armed Forces.
Very different from our current situation.
I also never said anything about no control (or access to auto or semi auto guns for the general populace), control is necassary. However making guns only available to the Armed Forces of Australia is simply asking for trouble.
Also, we may not fear our government at this time, but our government certainly also doesn’t fear us and on this I believe a government should ALWAYS live in fear of upsetting the population.

SimonFromLakemba says:

08:11am | 14/02/12

Look at America for your answer.

In Compton police were coming up against gangsters with AK-47s.

I think what you fail to realise is where the bikers get their guns from in the first place? generally break and enter or robbing security firms.

M says:

08:53am | 14/02/12

Erm, look at Switzerland and the UK for your rebuttal.

Switzerland: Every male is required to own firearms, one of the lowest rates of gun crime in the world.

UK: Some of the toughest gun laws in the world and gun crime is spiraling out of control.

No, best we not let facts or reason into an argument about firearms.

Warren says:

09:39am | 14/02/12

Switzerland is a unique case. Trained militiamen are obliged to keep weapons at home, not every male and only while they are in service.

You would have to have rocks in your head to think society would be safer by having unrestricted gun control.

Space Ghost says:

09:57am | 14/02/12

Gun ownership in Switzerland is related to being in the militia. Switzerland’s alternative to a standing army. Guns for which only rapid deploy units have ammo. Misrepresenting facts highlights how weak the pro-gun argument is.

Red Duck says:

10:09am | 14/02/12

Simonfromkemba says:

“I think what you fail to realise is where the bikers get their guns from in the first place? generally break and enter or robbing security firms.”

Nah, not really. If you’ve got a network set up to import drugs or precursor chems, then it’s much easier to bring firearms in from outside the country. Or you buy them from a black market dealer.

Besides, robbing the local gun shop will net you a decent haul of ammo, but the because of the gun laws, you’re not going to find much in the way of firearms to support your gangland war. There’s a lot of street cred to be lost when you show up to a turf war with long-arm hunting rifles when the other guys have hand guns and SMG’s.

Red Duck says:

10:11am | 14/02/12

Simonfromkemba says:

“I think what you fail to realise is where the bikers get their guns from in the first place? generally break and enter or robbing security firms.”

Nah, not really. If you’ve got a network set up to import drugs or precursor chems, then it’s much easier to bring firearms in from outside the country. Or you buy them from a black market dealer.

Besides, robbing the local gun shop will net you a decent haul of ammo, but the because of the gun laws, you’re not going to find much in the way of firearms to support your gangland war. There’s a lot of street cred to be lost when you show up to a turf war with long-arm hunting rifles when the other guys have hand guns and SMG’s.

SimonFromLakemba says:

10:16am | 14/02/12

lol love it, so you completely dismiss America who has the right to bear arms, nice work.

Also missed my point about the crims get their guns from.

It comes down the society, America/England has a violent society, Switzerland doesn’t.

What I don’t understand is why in Australia, apart from being in the country would you need a gun?

SimonFromLakemba says:

11:55am | 14/02/12

@Red Duck

There is always that option. A few years ago in Sydney they managed to link a lot of crimes and shootings to stolen guns from Chubb workers, criminals were rolling them left right and centre.

LC says:

06:44pm | 18/02/12

Space Ghost knows a lot about misrepresenting and withholding information alright. To re-hash relevant bits from my earlier posts, and to add a few more relevant details:
All able Swiss men must serve in the military from age 20 to age 30 or for selected roles, age 34. Combat personnel are given an assault rifle after they have passed training for it, and they must attend a refresher training session with the weapon every 12 months. After their time serving in the militia is up, they have the option to retain the weapon, but it must first be sent back to the factory to be converted to semi-auto only.
Restrictions on ammunition apply only to the ammunition for Swiss military firearms distributed to them from the government. Only government subsided ammunition is only available at firing ranges, with no requirement to register it, but only under the condition that it’s used there, and not taken out of the premises. They can still purchase their own without it being a crime from a store, but they have to register it, by writing their name down in a book kept by the store owner. Hunters and presumably sports shooters are exempt from any government restrictions.

And Simon, while you are indeed right that some of the firearms in criminal hands are stolen from legal civilian and government users. However, it does not require a huge stretch of the imagination to think that, in the yachts/boats most organized crime groups use to smuggle illegal drugs (or materials to make them) into society, they can also smuggle in other illegal paraphernalia, including weapons. Take a look at some of the hauls they get from bikie gangs and other organized crime rackets and you’ll see what I mean. Automatic weapons have NEVER been legal in Australia (and I have no issue with that), and they aren’t the weapons issued to the army, so how else could they have possibly have been getting here?
(Oh, and AK-47s found on some American gangsters are also illegal too in some way, shape, or form, if not illegal full stop. Surprise surprise!!)

marley says:

08:20am | 14/02/12

There are a range of penalties available to the judges.  The farmer or the bikie who gets convicted for the first time gets a fine.  I don’t have a problem with that.  The farmer will doubtless go register his gun and not trouble the authorities again.  The bikie won’t, and when he gets convicted for a second offence he should have a nice term in gaol for his troubles.  Instead, he’s getting a fine.  That’s where the problem lies.

There are a range of sentences available;  why aren’t the judges using them for repeat offenders or for those with lengthy criminal histories?

Waz says:

02:32pm | 15/02/12

@marley

No.

Any breach of the Weapons Act results in a loss of licence and forfeit of possession of firearms. Therefore the farmer loses his firearms but the bikie does not.

Max Power says:

09:55am | 14/02/12

Clearly Joe Public do need guns, as the police and governments are failing in their duty of care, which they legislated for, to protect the public.
If someone breaks into your house and is armed with a weapon, be it, gun, knife, bat, etc. the government wants you to call 000 and have the police respond. They have made it their duty of care to protect your life, and their arm of this duty of care is the police. By the time the police arrive to protect you, you are either dead or injured, and the attacker has fled, meaning the police have and by extension the government, failed in their duty of care to protect you.

The government has stripped us of the means to defend and protect ourselves, whilst allowing the criminals to be armed to the hilt. Suposedly our soceity is safer for having less firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens, yet drive by shootings and violent home invasions seem to be more prevalent than ever.

The Government, police and legal system appear to be ineffective in combating violent crime and seem to think the best way to combat it, is to introduce tougher laws on the those people abiding by the law and doing the right thing. The government have created a duty of care to protect us, and they are failing miserably, they should be held accountable for this failure.

Society is not safer for the tougher gun laws imposed on the law abiding citizens. The only thing that has been made safer by these laws are the Governments oin Australia. They have succeeded in virtually disarming the citizens of Australia, meaning the government has all the power and the citizens have none. Australian governments have nothing to fear from its citizens.

Another Michael says:

11:57am | 14/02/12

Tell that to any shopkeeper that’s been held up, or any one who’s had a home invasion. The police and legal system are only of use after the fact….totally worthless after your stuff is gone or someone has been killed. Much like Switzerland, we need more weapons with appropriate training, and legislation that allows self defence of people and property, not the media driven hysteria we have in this country.

Michael says:

06:18am | 15/02/12

Max, guns are not the only way to protect your home. I have kitcken knives that I can use, and I keep a big stick (read crowbar) in the bedroom. These measures are more to make my partner feel safe than of any actual use. This is more than enough protection should someone ever break-in.

Crime is hardly out of control, you are being hysterical.

Another Michael
“Much like Switzerland”

Well, I think that has been discussed elsewhere on here. Switzerland’s gun ownership is related to military service. For every good example there are several bad examples, say, America.

Waz says:

02:40pm | 15/02/12

@Michael

It is unwise to quote the US as a bad example of gun crime because every state has different laws. As a trend, the states with the most restrictions have the highest rates of violent crime; the states with least restrictions have the lowest rates of violent crime. In fact, the state with absolutely no restrictions has a lower violent crime rate than any state in Australia.

Peter says:

09:35am | 14/02/12

And this is what is so remarkable about an article like this.  No attempt whatsoever to provide the reader with an genuine understanding of the topic. 

After reading it, I found, in about five seconds, this abstract from a 2004 peer-reviewed analysis of the legislative reforms in Victoria and their impact on gun related deaths over the past 22 years.  Guess what the conclusion is - “Dramatic reductions in overall firearm related deaths and particularly suicides by firearms were achieved in the context of the implementation of strong regulatory reform.”

Here it is, if you don’t believe me: http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/10/5/280.full

M says:

11:11am | 14/02/12

So your rational for gun control is to reduce suicides huh? Can you please explain the link between banning semi-automatic rifles and suicide? I though suicide was a mental health issue, not a gun control issue.

TheRealDave says:

01:37pm | 14/02/12

Ahh how much more does the judiciary need from the police? The man was caught not once but twice by the police with an illegal weapon in his possession.

OK, so you fine him the first time…..OK, I can accept that - begrudgingly….but a second time?!?!?!

What more do you need as ‘evidence’ from the Police/Prosecution?? please, I’d love to hear it.

Does the scumbag actually need to be observed trying to shoot or kill someone BEFORE some judge wakes up from his afternoon nap and do what he is paid to do?

Muttley says:

12:28pm | 14/02/12

good point. Its much better to lose a few kids to improperly stored firearms than not be armed to the teeth when that ruthless band of home invaders kick your door down again and ransack your house. Quick question though, if your guns are properly locked away, how useful will they be for a home invasion? Unless i’m mistaken, they dont usually ring ahead to book.
  With the decrease in common sense across our society, is it really wise to have ready access to something so dangerous?

Rev says:

08:56am | 14/02/12

Cool story bro… if this hypothetical German populace was so against Hitler, they could’ve gotten their guns from bikies and criminal elements, obviously.

Oh, and happy Godwin’s to you too.

Al says:

01:21pm | 14/02/12

subotic, it’s not ancient history. There are still people alive that remember the events leading up to 1945. Perhaps you might also want to consider Stalin’s efforts as well

Tony says:

06:10pm | 14/02/12

Under the regime of Hitler all those rats would be in a concentration camp not free to sell drugs and intimidate everyone on the way and no more do-gooders fascists and no more illegal migrants to have everything free.

Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.

Andrew says:

08:40pm | 14/02/12

Your kidding right, so by your logic, any country thet doesnt allow everyone to own a gun is proberly going to become nazi germany. And no tony the hardened criminals wouldnt have being in concentration camps they would have being put in the SS and they would have being the ones going around making sure everyday people like me and u done what they were told.

AndAd says:

09:49am | 14/02/12

Finally some sense!  It would solve SO MANY problems and allow for greater control and care of the users as they would be not only be accounted for but would also be using drugs that are manufactured in controlled environments therefor being purer.  And the underworld would lose it’s major cash cow.

Shane says:

08:47am | 14/02/12

Erick, with his strange and disturbed view of the world (ie, it’s all the chick’s fault) has guns. How comforting.

I wasn’t much for gun control before joining those dots.

Freeman says:

08:58am | 14/02/12

Yes, as a matter of fact!

The first year I went, One Nation had a stall there chaired by David Oldfield and his missus, haha

Erick says:

11:38am | 14/02/12

@Shane - Those “dots” are joined only in your imagination.

Do you assume that everyone who goes to the Royal Easter Show has a farm? Do you assume that everyone who visits the Australian War Memorial is a soldier? Try to be more logical.

SimonFromLakemba says:

11:59am | 14/02/12

The Royal Easter Show has rides also Erick, not sure if the gun show has Ferris wheels and dodgem cars.

Long bow to draw between a historical place of significance and a gun show.

Freeman says:

12:06pm | 14/02/12

Shane,

a firearms license is an indication of good character and a clean criminal record.

Erick says:

12:17pm | 14/02/12

@SimonFromLakemba - Nice way to miss the point. Do you assume that the gun show has nothing other than guns?

SimonFromLakemba says:

01:41pm | 14/02/12

@Erick

Doesn’t look like it:

http://www.penrithgunshow.com.au/

Everything to do with guns I’d say.

Not sure how I missed the point.

Erick says:

04:15pm | 14/02/12

@SimonFromLakemba - From the link you posted:

“Items at the show include—Antique Pistols, Rifles, Shotguns, modern sporting and club firearms, reloading gear and general accessories, books,medals, archery equipment, knives, swords, safes and security equipment, fishing tackle, trinkets and novelties, medieval armour and weaponry, videos, scopes and binoculars, watches, recreational and leisure gear, ammunition, miliitaria, historical memorabilia and collectables as well as displays of our past history.”

Sounds like a lot more than just guns to me.

M says:

09:46am | 14/02/12

I’d love to know how a semi automatic .22 rifle with a range of 50m is an assualt weapon, and has no place in something like pest control, i.e., shooting rabbits.

Freeman says:

10:49am | 14/02/12

M,

A semi auto .22lr is still available to farmers and those who carry the necessary license for eradication of vermin. recreational hunters have no problem using a pump action, bolt action or lever action .22. A semi auto .22lr can still very dangerous against a group of unarmed people.

but having said that, licenced firearms owners account for a tiny amount of violent firearms crime and they must have a clean criminal history with no violent record. a semi auto .22 would not be the choice of weapon for criminals and could be the one exception.

Freeman says:

09:24am | 14/02/12

You are right, Eleanor

There is no way Bryant could have conducted such a massacre without a semi-automatic rifle.

M says:

09:50am | 14/02/12

Why shouldn’t law abiding people be allowed to purchase semi-automatic weapons?

Eleanor says:

10:14am | 14/02/12

What purpose do they serve, M? If you’re a hunter, either a high-powered bolt action rifle for large game, such as pig or deer will be enough, or a shotgun for smaller game like wild duck will serve your purposes.

If you cite “personal safety” as a reason for owning a firearm, I suggest you either move to a new neighbourhood or buy a dog and some deadlocks for your doors and a sensor light.

M says:

11:18am | 14/02/12

Why does it matter what purpose they serve? There’s plenty of legally available bolt action rifles in this country that serve no purpose on account of how large they are. There are no elephants in Australia, so should the public be banned from owning an “elephant gun” just because someone doesn’t see the point in it?

I’d also love to know why you think I’d cite “personal safety” as a reason for keeping firearms? That’s an american concept, here you are liable to be charged for shooting anyone, even in self defence. I have firearms because I am a sport shooter and part time hunter.

But I suppose all you anti gun people think that’s the only reason anyone would want to own firearms in this country.

Freeman says:

12:01pm | 14/02/12

M, Have a little maturity.

Eleanor is perfectly reasonable and not necessarily anti guns.

Semi autos are *generally* not hunting rifles or target rifles. They are *generally* assault weapons. they are commonly used in massacres and shootings (see the US) conventional actions such as bolt actions don’t have the same capacity for mass devastation and don’t allow would be crims more fire power than police. those who NEED semi autos can still get them.

Eleanor says:

03:55pm | 14/02/12

So by your reasoning then, M, it doesn’t matter what I choose to do with something, as long as I don’t break the law with it, I should be entitled to have it?

I’ll bear that in mind when I apply to by an M1 Abrams tank. I’m not going to do anything with it, I just want to own it, so why shouldn’t I be allowed to?

Shane says:

10:07am | 14/02/12

The Monash uni mass shooting was carried out in 2002. This falls within the bounds of the stated period for the study (1979-2003). To eliminate this inconvenient event, the author only considered mass shootings in a 10.5 year span from 1979 onwards, eliminating 3.5 years and at least one mass shooting as noted above.

The study is academic fraud, designed to produce a predetermined outcome and data that conflcted with the stated aim was eliminated.

Another Michael says:

01:15pm | 14/02/12

So image what we could achieve as a society if we outlaw alcohol, excepting those that have a genuine need, also restrict motor vehicles, because obviously no-one needs anything with an engine bigger than a moped.
Seriously, these two things kill more than almost any other thing combined, but can you imagine the outcry if the same controls were applied as have been to firearms? This is what pisses me off the most about the clowns peddling this crap, is that you can ban what you like as long as it’s doesn’t affect me.
Meanwhile I await the push from the anti-firearm crusaders to ban these two things, I’m sure they will, because public safety if the primary concern, right?

subotic says:

10:01am | 14/02/12

Shhhhhhh…. them buggers are listening to this post…..

TheRealDave says:

01:25pm | 14/02/12

Arguments like yours are utter inane bollocks and only further enflame the situation and annoy actual legal gun owners and sporting shooters. Its people like you that get legal guns taken off law abiding citizens with your ‘only we can save Australia form the evil hordes ready to rape and pillage us all’ crap.

If you want to defend Australia from ‘evil invaders’ then please join the ADF. But something tells me you wouldn’t pass the psych evaluation.

Burko says:

11:43am | 14/02/12

Ohhh I dont know….perhaps someone likes to hunt their own food or maybe likes to put holes in paper down at the rifle range or maybe even collect antique firearms or shoot at little flying orange discs…....maybe….and guess what…....all these pursuits are legal, and some, are even practiced in the Olympics. The same question could be asked of any golfer as too why they need golf clubs, the answer is the same in both cases and it would be something like”......ummm…..without them I couldnt participate in my sport” or something like that.
So, thats why some people need guns.

Another Michael says:

01:43pm | 14/02/12

For the same reason that you can choose to drink a beer instead of the water (that’s all you need). You got two feet, why does anyone need a car?. It’s a choice. Remember how many alcohol & vehicle related deaths there are before you go “yeah, but”

iansand says:

10:16am | 14/02/12

I hope he doesn’t own a gun.

iansand says:

10:19am | 14/02/12

I hope he doesn’t own a gun.

subotic says:

10:22am | 14/02/12

Looks like the reptillian overlords got to the rev 1st….

M says:

11:01am | 14/02/12

“Surely the only answer is to totally ban the sale or importantion of all firearms to private individuals. Naturally farmers & other Private Citizens would be exempt if they needed fiem to protect livestock etc. Owners & weapons would have tobe registered & people would only be allowed o own them if they could prove they really needed them. All private businesses currently selling these, mostly totally unnecessary, weapons would be closed & some compensaton paid.”

This already happens. This is how the current system already works. Why do we need more laws?

LAFO says:

01:56pm | 14/02/12

Yeah Prohibition is the perfect solution….

Burko says:

11:50am | 14/02/12

Just a simple one word question to the above and that is, why?

MarkS says:

01:34pm | 14/02/12

@AnnA C
Cars kill & injure more people then guns. At hell of a lot more people then guns. Most people only have cars for the convenience or for the fun of driving them. Very few NEED to use them for their employment.

Unless you live where there is no public transport & have a requirement to travel there is no NEED for you to have a car. All those cars are a danger.

We should make it illegal for anyone who has not proven their unavoidable NEED for a car to own one. There should be a maximum 10 year jail sentence if you are caught driving one (no excuses).

What you don’t agree? Maybe because you wish to drive a car but not own a gun? Hypocritical of you is it not? I on the other hand do not wish to drive a car but I do wish to own a firearm. You would make me a criminal becouse my hobbies are not yours.

Andrew says:

09:12pm | 14/02/12

Marks you are an idiot, The fact that you idiots keeps bringing up motorcars as a comparison just makes rational people very happy that you arnt allow to own a firearm.

MarkS says:

09:22am | 15/02/12

@Andrew
Name calling does not invalidate my argument, but it does yours.  By the way I am allowed to own firearms; it is just a lot more difficult than it needs to be.

Andrew says:

10:37am | 15/02/12

If your going to make stupid comparrisons you deserve to be called an idiot. Just because you dont use the word idiot in your post doesnt make your comparrison logical. You own 2 guns then stop your $%#@$% whinging. Oh wo is me its all so hard, using your stupid comparison the last time I looked theres laws when it comes to cars as well.

MarkS says:

02:06pm | 15/02/12

@Andrew
Unable to come up with a rational & reasoned argument? This is often the case when people have deeply held assumptions questioned. I guess it is good thing I am not in Ancient Athens, or you would be voting the hemlock for me.

Austin 3:16 says:

12:17pm | 14/02/12

Meh I still gots me chainsaw

iansand says:

03:15pm | 14/02/12

It seems to me that vigilantism provides one of the better arguments for gun control.

LAFO says:

02:02pm | 14/02/12

What a great idea, legalise drugs! they kill more people every year than guns do!

And you justify your comments by pointing out that it is a good idea to disarm -
“the kinds of people that attend one nation rallies. Idiots with a dim grasp of politics and a penchant of resorting to force when they don’t get their way.”

Bigot

Dieter Moeckel says:

02:45pm | 14/02/12

Its not drugs that kill people - Its the War on Drugs! Why do your think its called a war?

Andrew says:

09:15pm | 14/02/12

Seriously Dieter. Drugs dont kill people?

M says:

01:22pm | 14/02/12

Hello, Australia? It’s the US, we’d like our conspiricy theorists back.

subotic says:

01:33pm | 14/02/12

I for one welcome our new Zork overlords…

TheRealDave says:

01:41pm | 14/02/12

Apologies, by ‘you’ inthe last paragraph I meant ‘we’....was rambling towards the end ....I missed lunch today…..I could just go out and shoot someone now….

...innapropriate?......sorry…..

M says:

01:48pm | 14/02/12

It’s mostly because the anti gun nuts think that all sport shooters want an M16 or an AK-47 in their house. If they actually had an idea of what sort of semi-automatic weapons we wanted to own, they’d probably be a little more receptive to it.

But since when have the anti-gun brigade have any idea? Just look at some of the comments on this page. “Ban guns,” “no one should have guns except farmers and the army”, “there’s no valid reason for owning a gun.”

They’re like religious fanatics, there’s no reasoning with them.

Jade says:

02:33pm | 14/02/12

I wouldn’t mind having a hand gun hiding in my underwear draw With crime on the increase and my boyfriend away for weeks at a time the only protection I have is a tyre iron if I go and get it out of my car.

Not nice when houses in the next suburb are regularly burgled and people are stealing family pets and what not.  I would rather be protected, and I am sure criminals (so long as they aren’t also carrying a gun) will quickly turn around and walk away when they have one pointed at their head.

TheRealDave says:

03:19pm | 14/02/12

I disagree Jade. We don’t want loaded handguns in your underwear draw, ever. They need to be locked away where little hands can’t get to them. There are many sophisticated and secure options that will let you get to your weapon quickly and keep it safe and secure when not needed.

Saying you want to keep it in yoru undie draw will ge tthe anti-gun nuts foaming at the mouth and linking articles of 4 year olds shooting babies.

Jade says:

04:06pm | 14/02/12

Lol the only little hands I have are 2 sets of paws… damn staffies, if only they weren’t so friendly and desired for dog fighting :( . I wouldn’t really keep it in my undie draw. If I had gone through all the hoopla of getting a licence in the first place I would stick by the rules :D

And I certainly wouldn’t keep it loaded either! I was brought up around a range of different guns, mostly semi automatic rifles and I had my “own” (in my mind anyway) 22 bolt action rifle. I am well aware of the gun safety rules.

youdy beaudy says:

04:40pm | 14/02/12

I think that regardless of whether we point a gun at someone and threaten to shoot them, shooting them would take a lot of courage and then afterwards we would feel guilty about taking anyones life regardless of who they are.

But on the other hand, if someone pulled a gun on me or my family my trusty pitchfork flying throught the air would definately scare any gunman who was standing in the way. I think they would be running up the road to get out of the way. What has to be done is that you throw the pitchfork as soon as the gun is raised. It doesn’t take long for a pitchfork to travel through the air and hit a target and they are very accurate.

A pitchfork through the legs would not be pleasant but the person would not be killed but would have a permanent limp to contend with and would make them think before threatening anyone again. On the other hand a pitchfork through the body or head would signal sayonara for the evil guy, but the same guilt and unhappiness of taking a life would be not good.

Anyway, there are plenty of ways to defend oneself. The Human body is very easily killed. We don’t have much protection really. But killing we all know is bad, but is defending oneself and family ok. That is the question that the law needs to answer. If you beat up a burgular then these days the burgular can sue. God it’s hopeless really!. Me i prefer peace. The world has never known peace, shame really!!.

M says:

07:24am | 15/02/12

Young Beaudy, people like you make me smile. You’d throw a pitchfork at someone who was pointing a gun at you? Sure you would darl.

LC says:

09:18pm | 16/02/12

@ Youdy Beaudy

Sorry, but I can’t put this in any nicer way. If you genuinely believe that you’ll even get a chance to even lift your pitchfork before the crim gets a shot off, then I have a bridge to sell you.

TheRealDave says:

03:21pm | 14/02/12

I disagree.

The Death Penalty does in fact impact on murders. No-one who has ever been executed has gone on to commit another murder.

Now compare that against convicted murderers who’ve ‘served their time’ and gone on to kill again.

St. Michael says:

05:07pm | 14/02/12

I suppose it’s also had an impact on appeals.  No innocent man who went to the gallows ever appealed his conviction successfully after that, so they must have been guilty.

Andrew says:

09:28pm | 14/02/12

What a load of rubbish, if you dont believe many people would think twice about commiting murder if they would be put to death of locked up for life your kidding yourself. All the talk is about, what is the guy foound guilty is actually innocent but no one dares talks about how many people are dead today, or have had there lifes ruined because a murderer or convicted criminal has been let go free when he shouldnt have been. You can guarantee more people are dead today because criminals are let out early. Then would be dead if wrongly convicted and sentence to death.

youdy beaudy says:

05:13pm | 14/02/12

Police should definately not be armed in the streets. Police turn up not surprisingly quite some time after a crime is committed because they are afraid of getting shot themselves. So, don’t rely on the Cops.

Yes, they’ve got all the tazers and glocks on the hip and get around in their very fast squad cars like in LA Law but they will not put themselves in the firing line. They like picking on people who can’t defend themselves more. The badge is misused all of the time.

It should be like the coppers in Gt Britian. No guns just the old cudgel and the big hat with the quite large dangerous badge on top. It they have an armed situation to deal with then they ring the Special Branch who do carry very large weapons and then they go in and sort out the problem. That’s why they say that the British Police force are the best in the World.

Our Police should not carry weapons. They could learn Karate or more self defence for normal operations. I don’t like our coppers carrying weapons at all because at the end of the day they are just stand over men misusing their authority that we the public give them. Australian coppers are totally
Americanized that’s their problem. And they are racist as well. Sad lot really. But in fairness they do solve a lot of murders and crimes but unless there are special circumstances guns are not necessary for them. It’s just another form of control over the honest people who pay their salaries. And by the way Queensland coppers and elsewhere, stop killing of Aboriginals in custody. Very Shamefull. Racist coppers need to be jailed in the Aboriginal section. Let payback begin.

Andrew says:

09:33pm | 14/02/12

The article is talking about that harden criminals have access to firearms and here we have you idiots people saying that the cops shouldnt have guns. What a great solution to the criminals having to many guns, lets disarmed the cops. The more I read some of these comments the happier I am that most people in Australia dont have access to firearms.

Tator says:

09:51pm | 14/02/12

What a load of Crap.
Firstly as a 22 year veteran, I have never drawn my weapon apart from training purposes, and 95% of coppers here in SA are in the same boat.
The problem with your comments is that they are drawn from media reports on a very small percentage of incidents.  What you don’t know is that quite a few Police officers involved in fatal shootings actually leave the service
As for “They could learn Karate or more self defence for normal operations” I have one name you should google, Senior Constable David Barr.  Senior Constable Barr was killed in the line of duty by a man with a knife when due to a crowd around the offender, he attempted to subdue him with a Monadnock PR24 baton(by far the best style of baton to actually attempt this with btw)  You ought to research “surviving edged weapons” where the safest method of dealing with an offender armed with a blade/syringe is from a distance and Hollywood depictions of so called martial arts experts defeating men armed with knives without receiving any injuries is basically fiction.
As for the British police, this article shows the folly of having unarmed police in general http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/policewoman-shot-dead-in-shop-robbery-515937.html
as a police officer NEVER knows exactly what sort of tasking they are attending as most of the time, the complainant just doesn’t have all the information required.  Plus I have worked with several ex UK officers who have stated that having an issue sidearm is a comfort after years of walking the beat without one and having to wait 20 odd minutes for the nearest armed crew to attend when the shit hits the fan.

OchreBunyip says:

03:32am | 15/02/12

it is interesting that as the citizens have been disarmed the police have been increasingly armed.

Al says:

10:38pm | 14/02/12

I’m sure the Jews under Hitler, The Russians under Stalin, The Ugandans under Idi Amin, The Cambodians under the Khmer Rouge, The Timorese under the Indonesians, The Muslims under Milosevic, the Kurds under Saddam,  The Afghanis under the Russians and the Taliban, The Egyptians, The Libyans, The Syrians (and the list goes on and on) would disagree.

Is the ownership of firearms an issue of the public not having trust in the government or the government not having trust in its people?

What has the government done for the people to lose trust in it?

Will says:

12:35am | 15/02/12

but not allowing the public to defend itself or its children while police are 30 minutes or more away makes sense? I sleep very soundly at night knowing that I have the tools to defend my family, myself and my property if necessary. Even unarmed people will eventually get fed up with a system that does not protect them or allow them to protect themselves. You may think of us as ‘dickheads’, but there is no denying that you are a coward.

Govt@FauxCitizen says:

08:54am | 15/02/12

@ SD, dickheads like you just don’t get it, while you’re franticly explaining to the 000 operator, that three arsehole thugs have just invaded your home bashed you molested your boyfreind and stole valuables, I on the other hand would be calmly explaining, that I have two in custody and one looks pretty fucked up with some of his head splatterd over the front porch , and please send someone to clean the mess before the scums’ blood dries too much.
But in reality the right to defend my loved ones, myself, and my castle is diminished and the crims know it, I have to run to the gun safe unlock it unlock the safe with the bolt in it, then unlock the ammo safe, then assemle and load the gun, the softcock snivell libertarians, and pissweak justice system are the thugs’ best allies,
7 BILLION “humans” on this shrinking planet, I’m not going to miss a few arsehole thugs but according to dickheads like you even crims have rights, even when they violate your space.

Jason s says:

11:19pm | 19/02/12

TrollerCoaster:  Canada just abolished there firearms registry in this last week.you want to know why? Because the 1.5 billion dollars they spent on it never did anything to save a single Canadian life. Those billions can now be redirected to housing, schools, hospitals, education and infrastructure!

Everyone likes to quote USA statistics on gun crime yet when they hear what the westernised civiliaed country of Canada are doing they shut their mouths!

Ps: England introduced heavy firearms laws and banned pistols entirely…. You know what happened? They now have sky high gun crime. But I hear you say “it was supposed to reduce gun crime?” ...... Lol… Yeah right!!!!

Billions of $$$ wasted!!!