Prev
Next

The latest lady’s must have: A handgun?

Shannon O'Meara

by Shannon O'Meara

28 Mar 05:40am

Must Reads

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it - this is a caption

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

180

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment - this is a caption

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

27

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest - this is a caption

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

3

Filed under: Fashion, Guns, United States, Weapons, Women

88 comments

It’s advisable to never get in the way of a woman’s love for fashion and accessories. But now it seems, in the US, you could pay the price by getting your head blown off.

For the discerning lady, I mean, really discerning. Picture: Supplied

With an 83 per cent increase in women buying firearms in the States, a need to add sparkle, glamour and a supposed feminine touch to a deadly weapon has also arisen. Handguns donning a pink mother-of-pearl grip, Swarovski crystals or Hello Kitty designs are providing colourful options for the gun-toting fashionista.

While a Mail article is quick to blame celebrities such as Rihanna for glamorising guns with her neck tattoo, and heck - while we’re at it - let’s blame Paris Hilton for originally jazzing up a perfectly fine mobile phone to resemble a disco ball. But this latest trend actually exemplifies the core at the gun problem in the States – weapons intended to kill have become accessories.

According to the Legal Community Against Violence campaign there are 273 gun bills under evaluation that would make owning a gun easier. And this is despite tragedies such as the Tucson shooting earlier this year where a 22-year-old man that had been expelled from college for irrational behavior and rejected from the Army was able to buy a gun over the counter and kill six people. How much easier could it possibly become?

Obama’s recent op-ed in the Arizona Daily Star surmises eloquently that “America is robbed of more futures” because of the current gun laws. But he plays it too soft in an aim to keep the peace with the staunch pro-gun campaigners. He says, “The fact is, almost all gun owners in America are highly responsible.

They’re our friends and neighbours”. Almost isn’t good enough. And why in one of the wealthiest democracies on earth do our friends and neighbours need deadly weapons?

It’s not unreasonable to suggest that a neighbourhood dispute involving a handgun sporting glitter, a Japanese cartoon cat design or a pink hue are actually more likely to result in bloody violence than a standard firearm. Surely a victim or target is more likely to burst out laughing at the hilarity of the object and thus further aggravating the gun wielder.

Let alone the endless potential for children and adults alike to assume the killing machine is actually a toy a-la Barbie turns Bond girl.

Trivialising weapons and making them fancy dress gives flippancy to their intended use.

Guns are not accessories, they’re tools that fire bullets at high speeds, piercing skin, flesh and bone and they’re meant to kill.

Let’s not put earrings on them.

Most commented

431Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
390There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
336Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
266Who murdered the Arts degree?
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
223The world puzzles over Australia's Prime Minister

88 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Killemall says:

      06:42am | 28/03/11

      If everyone carried a gun, none of this would be an issue.

      Reply

    • TChong says:

      06:55am | 28/03/11

      A world where every one carried a gun ?
      No thanks.
        - firearms only purpose is to kill, and what happens if “everyone” isnt as rational and stable as you and me , Killemall?

    • Scaarj says:

      07:38am | 28/03/11

      It seems to me this is EXACTLY what Americas issue is…

    • Chk Chk Boom! says:

      08:08am | 28/03/11

      TChong is right. We are not a law unto ourselves, and in an irrational moment some of us will kill…Some are irrational enough to use it when they want something, and use it to threaten, and it puts all of us at risk. It devalues human life.

    • Skepdad says:

      08:18am | 28/03/11

      When guns are illegal, only criminals have guns. 

      Are there any statistics showing that violent crimes have declined after the massive political overreaction to Port Arthur?

    • Reg says:

      10:42am | 28/03/11

      “He says, ‘The fact is, almost all gun owners in America are highly responsible.’ ”

      In a US population of 220 million, if 99.9% are highly responsible, that still leaves 2,200,000 individuals who are NOT. Of course it wouldn’t be that bad in Australia, we’d only have 220,000 of them. Unfortunately, except for a few women, they would mostly be the dumb-arses or bikers.

    • skepdad says:

      11:12am | 28/03/11

      0.1% of 220M is 220,000 Reg.

      Last I saw, the bikers seem to have no problem accessing guns now…

    • Likes Joining Dots says:

      12:26pm | 28/03/11

      skepdad

      It’s not the bikers I’m concerned about, their actions tend to be internal and directed to similiar folk like themselves. It’s the angry guy on meth walking the street that concerns me, or the lady on crack on the train with her pink pearl handled revolver.

      Agreed that gun owners can, and mostly are responsible, I’m just not keen on making them too easy to own and then somehow having them viewed as an accessory or fashion item.

    • Reg says:

      12:44pm | 28/03/11

      Sorry, only 220,000 irresponsible US gunmen and women, and 22,000 Aussie ones. I told those glasses people these new tri-focals were shithouse, even AFTER three remakes. They can keep the money I’ll find someone else.

      Skepdad. “When guns are illegal, only criminals have guns.”

      Then nothing should be illegal and we’d have no criminals?

    • James1 says:

      12:48pm | 28/03/11

      Skepdad,

      There is one type of crime that has declined 100% since Port Arthur.  Lone gunman world record massacre with legal weapons-type crimes.  Since Port Arthur, and the political “overreaction”, there have been no massacres in Australia.  So once again, John Howard did the right thing.

    • skepdad says:

      01:54pm | 28/03/11

      James1, perhaps we should ban cigarettes, alcohol and cars then.  How many people do they kill per year?

    • James1 says:

      02:37pm | 28/03/11

      Fair point skepdad, but I think there are some slight differences and nuances you have missed that are important.

      Firstly, a car is a little bit different to, say, a semi-automatic rifle.  One can be used to get from point A to point B, as well as run over pedestrians.  The other can only be used to kill large numbers of living things and…  What else can a semi-automatic rifle be used for again?  When deciding what is legal and illegal, the government must take both of these factors and many others into account.  I am sure you knew this when you made what I can only assume was a facetious comparison between semi-automatic rifles and cars.

      Secondly, I have never heard of a nutjob going on a rampage and killing 30+ people with a packet of cigarettes.  Nor 100 packets of cigarettes for that matter.  I might be wrong, but I am pretty sure that (given the current state of our smoking laws) smokers only kill themselves.

      Thirdly, alcohol also has many uses other than killing a large number of living things in a very short period.  When someone uses a bottle of Jameson Irish Whiskey to kill 30+ people at a tourist attraction, I am sure the government will consider your proposal.

      Until then, give me one reason why Australians need to be able to possess weapons that can wreak as much damage in such a short period as was possible at Port Arthur, and I might consider your arguments as to the equivalence of a semi-automatic rifle and a cigarette/car/bottle of lovely, lovely whiskey.

    • notSue says:

      02:43pm | 28/03/11

      @ Skepdad.”, perhaps we should ban cigarettes, alcohol and cars then.  How many people do they kill per year?”

      That’s a dumb argument. Guns are designed for one person to inflict injury upon another, it’s the very reason they exist. People drive cars for transport, and yes, they can injure others, but it isn’t their raison d’etre.

      Smoking and drinking are vices which usually kill the person indulging in them, not someone else.

      Try again.

    • Reg says:

      04:52pm | 28/03/11

      Skepdad; ” James1, perhaps we should ban cigarettes, alcohol and cars then.  How many people do they kill per year?”

      Perhaps, although only guns have the singular purpose of killing people and things. For their own good and that of others, certain drivers, smokers and drinkers should also be banned from exercising their irrational use of those commodities and much more-so with guns.

      Irrational drivers can be spotted by their actions. Irrational smokers can be spotted by their shaky hands and the head permanently enveloped in smoke. Irrational drinkers are easiest of all to spot BUT the irrational shooter… you may never spot at all or until it’s too late.

    • Likes Joining Dots says:

      05:15pm | 28/03/11

      @Reg, thanks for your post - I copied and saved that third para of yours which neatly sums things up (when used in the future, full credit to the author will be duly noted).

    • Jo says:

      10:22pm | 28/03/11

      @skepdad…..yes, cigarettes, alcohol and cars kill. Thankfully there are laws in place that endeavour to minimise the deaths and injuries that can be caused by this. Cigarette smoking now generally kills the fools who smoke; with current laws minimising where people can smoke there is a much reduced risk of death from passive smoking. Alcohol kills, particularly when mixed with cars. This is illegal. Fools disobey the laws and kill other innocents. If we didn’t have laws to provent guns, we’d have drunken fools in cars with guns…and many more deaths and injuries. Lets keep the ban on guns, which have the only purpose of killing, and keep up the strict rules on cigarettes, alcohol and cars (although as a passionate cyclist, I could live with a ban on cars provided the govt brought in fast trains and public transport to the degree than France has!  wink  ).

    • acotrel says:

      07:32am | 28/03/11

      I was having a beer in the Duckboard RSL with a few friends a while back, and the conversation turned to guns.  One bloke said he had a rifle so that if anyone came to his house making trouble he could defend it.  One of the Vietnam Vets said ‘so if I get drunk and go to your house making noise, falling over your dust bin, you’re going to shoot me?’ - ‘GET RID OF IT!”

      Reply

    • Keith Hammersmith says:

      09:56am | 28/03/11

      I keep a large wrench and a Colorado River Knife and Tool Company knife next to my bed in case anyone breaks in.
      Should these implements also be banned?

      How about we ban sticks as well…
      Baseball bats
      Cheese Graters
      anything heavy that could be thrown….

      ooh ooh

      I know   Dogs,  when your Vietnam Vet friend is crashing drunk through your other friends yard at 2 in the morning,  what if he gets bit by your friends dog…  struth
      lets ban dogs as well,  and come to think of it I got scratched by a cat once,  Ban them too.

      see how rediculous the argument gets. 
      It is all about freedom, and something a lot of people believe in and that is the right to bare arms - legally, and responsibly.

    • Ryan says:

      10:25am | 28/03/11

      How about your Vietnam Vet friend not get drunk in the first place, and how about he doesn’t break the law being drunk and disorderly, not to mention disturbing the peace.
      Take some personal responsibility for a change.

    • rationality says:

      10:46am | 28/03/11

      Keith:  If you sleep with a weapon next to the bed and someone gets in you are likely to cop that weapon in the neck before you can even think.  idiot.

    • Keith Hammersmith says:

      11:19am | 28/03/11

      Rationality,  2 things
      1 I thought the punch had a rule against name calling??
      2 I have a dog.  The dog will wake me up if someone were to break in - I guarantee it.  If the burglar manages to get past my dog and into my room (without waking me)and knows exactly where to look for my knife I would be very surprised. Very.

      I have a wife and Daughter,  If I hear someone in my house breaking in, I will and feel strongly that I have - the right to defend it. If cracking some burglar over the head with a wrench helps me defend it, then so be it.


      Final question for you Rationality.  Lets presume you have a family,  young daughter perhaps,  its 3 am,  you hear intruder in your house, or heaven forbid in your daughters room, - what do you do?
      Call the cops and wait 20 minutes?
      Or grab a Kitchen knife ?

      or do you pull the covers over your head and hope for the best?

      I know what I would do, and I doubt that intruder would be walking out of my daughters room on his 2 feet.

      Now you can look at it 2 ways.
      With the wrench I would likely have to use it, actually bash a burglar to have any effect. Perhaps killing him.
      With a Gun I likely would just have to point it at the burglar, thus getting him to leave or comply whilst I call the police.

    • wolf says:

      11:57am | 28/03/11

      Keith I would be very careful about the intent behind what you have written.
      If, without thinking and in self defence, you grab the nearest thing at hand you could be ok.
      If on the other hand you keep a weapon at hand in your room with the intention of using it that shows a pre meditation.

    • Likes Joining Dots says:

      12:11pm | 28/03/11

      Keith Hammersmith - I get what you are saying about protecting your family. But ...

      Knife related assaults are on the increase, apparently these knives are also being carried for self defence. How do you feel about allowing everyone currently on the street carrying a knife to legally upgrade to a handgun?

      Would that be a good thing or a bad thing?

    • Tim says:

      12:18pm | 28/03/11

      Wolf,
      Carrying a weapon would in no way lessen the claim of self defence.
      Self defence simply requires you to have a reasonable belief that what you did was necessary.

    • Keith Hammersmith says:

      12:32pm | 28/03/11

      Wolf,  Surely everyone in the world has had the premeditation then.  Are you telling me you have given it no thought whatsoever that if someone were to break into your house late some night what you would do?  Therefore premeditating your actions?  Are you trying to make out that if I were to bash an intruder with my wrench somehow the intruder is the victim?

      LJD,  your point about people that are carrying knives upgrading to carrying guns,  -  isnt it illegal to carry a concealed knife anyway?
      So comparing laws to the unlaw-abiding is a mute point.
      Criminals have guns and knives. Law abiding citizens may have knives but dont carry them around.  - I am dead set against telling good people they cant do something because some criminal abused it, because all you do is make good citizens stop, the criminals go on with impunity.

    • Likes Joining Dots says:

      12:56pm | 28/03/11

      Keith Hammersmith

      By your reasoning, carrying concealed knives should now also be made legal since it’s only ‘some criminals’ that abuse the weapon and law abiding citizens should not be told what to do.

      So my question about upgrading to handguns from knives is not a moot point.

    • Muttley says:

      01:43pm | 28/03/11

      Keith, do you realise that a law abiding gun owner is more likely to shoot a family member than a thief? That is what the stats show in the US. A country that, like you, holds to the belief that everyone has the right to bear arms. What a ridiculous concept. If it was 1811, maybe. But it is 2011. Join us in the current millenia.

    • Keith Hammersmith says:

      02:51pm | 28/03/11

      And cars kill more people than any gun in this country or the united states,  Would any one consider making them illegal Mutley?
      Life is after the leading cause of death.  If some moron keeps his gun loaded and shoots his wife in his house by accident, I really do not see how that has any bearing on me.  My father in-law - ex cop in the US has a gun, and is well trained on how to use it safely.
      Training
      make it a requirement,
      If you fail an exam, no gun for you.

      My whole point still stands and I have never seen a counter to it. Some people are bad,  they do bad things,  why should I be punished for them?

      According to the current rules we should all be using plastic sporks because knives are dangerous…  we should all be walking because cars are dangerous,  and the list goes on and on and on.

    • James1 says:

      03:13pm | 28/03/11

      Think on it Keith.  You are mostly talking about items which were conceived of and are built for primarily other purposes.  For instance, forks are very useful for eating.  A loaded gun is not.  A car is used for transport.  Outside a circus, a gun is not.  You see the differences here?  Guns were designed to replace crossbowmen, ei. to make killing on the battlefield more efficient.

      Taking these important differences into account, can you not see a reason why it might make sense to ban, say, semi-automatic rifles as a means of trying to limit the damage done by such weapons?  What freedom does banning semi-automatic and automatic weapons infringe, exactly?  Your right to kill a bunch of people very fast?

      IMHO, there are some rights we really don’t need at all.  For instance, when was the last time you said to yourself, “If only I had an AK-47”?

    • acotrel says:

      04:12pm | 28/03/11

      @Keith Paranoid? perhaps you should change your address to Mont Park or Larundel, if you live in Melbourne?  Oops sorry! I forgot Jeff Kennett closed those places!

    • Keith Hammersmith says:

      04:31pm | 28/03/11

      How do I seem paranoid? Because I actually want freedoms and liberties,  not have them taken away by a few bad seeds?

      Freedom.  Look it up. 
      You obviously do not want to own a gun,  ok,  then don’t.
      I do. So I should be allowed.

    • acotrel says:

      07:37am | 28/03/11

      What about the heros who have an argument with the missus then take the shot gun out and clean it in front of her? Even owning the thing in the first place shows INTENT!

      Reply

    • TR says:

      10:48am | 28/03/11

      Um… okay…?

    • Dan says:

      10:50am | 28/03/11

      Hmm actually I’ve been cleaning my shotgun and missus came and had a go at me for something…can’t remember what. The point being the shotgun was not even considered….same as the lamp or the kitchen knife is not considered when you get in an argument. Everyone argues at some stage in a healthy relationship. Intimidation has no place in that.
      INTENT!!! Yes I intend to knock over a few bunnies/foxes/feral cats/feral pigs on the weekend. I also intend to love my wife and children and give them lots of cuddles and kisses when I get home.
      Anyway back to the actual article - I agree the US has gun laws that are very lax and need to be tightened. I’m not a fan of trivialising firearms at all and they need to be always treated with respect. At the same time I’m not about to tell someone they are not allowed to defend themselves should the need arise.

    • Sam says:

      11:20am | 28/03/11

      Of what?

    • James says:

      12:10am | 29/03/11

      @ acotrel Intent to defend yourself, if she’s bigger than you. And she probably has a knife in the silverware drawer.She understands instinctively why you are cleaning it. Never ever take a knife to a gun fight.

    • Joel B1 says:

      07:42am | 28/03/11

      No guns here in Tassie, instead you get beaten to death by an eighteen year old with a baseball bat or maybe just knifed.

      Anyone got stats on violent/deadly assaults over the last 20 years?

      Reply

    • skepdad says:

      10:36am | 28/03/11

      Bella, those stats show:

      - A downward trend in gun homicides since 1969
      - A rise in knife homicides that almost erases the fall in gun homicides since 1990
      - A steady increase in assaults since 1995

      Shall we correlate the reduction in gun availability after Port Arthur with the increase in assaults?

      Shall we agree that people who want to hurt someone will find a way, and if they are denied a gun they will pick up a knife?

      Shall we conclude that education and severe consequences for violent crime, not prohibition for law abiding citizens, is the more sensible approach?

    • Ben says:

      01:14pm | 28/03/11

      all of those stats show one thing.

      People will kill people wether it be with a gun, a knife, a pen, a sewing needle, shovel etcetc..

      in other words

      Gun control has done absolutely sweet bugger all to affect a change in homicides.

      In fact if you look at the years after 1996 Port Arthur,  Homicides went UP.

      The notion is true..

      Guns don’t Kill people,  People Kill People.

    • marley says:

      03:02pm | 28/03/11

      Well, actually, those statistics show that the homicide rate by any means has fallen, so it suggests that knives are not as efficient at killing people, and that therefore more people who would have been counted as victims of murder are now included as victims of assault. 

      And if you really want to compare apples with apples, compare our homicide figures (of all types) with those of the US - 1.3/100,000 vs 5.0/100,000.

    • L. says:

      07:45am | 28/03/11

      ” - firearms only purpose is to kill, and what happens if “everyone” isnt as rational and stable as you and me , Killemall? “

      Every adult in Switzerland has a fully auto 5.56mm assult rifle and ammo at home, yet they have a lower fire arms murder rate than we do.

      Like everything, it’s all about the education…

      Reply

    • Bron says:

      09:52am | 28/03/11

      Maybe the difference is that the Swiss have theirs as part of their national service (ie in defence of their country), whereas in the US firearms are purchased to defend the individual?

    • LC says:

      09:55am | 28/03/11

      Umm…source?

      (PS: I’m no fan of gun control)

    • skepdad says:

      10:42am | 28/03/11

      LC this is easily verifiable.  Switzerland has compulsory national military service for all citizens and yes, every adult retains their military weapon at home.

      Education, training and consequences.  Far better for prevention of gun crime and gun accidents than prohibition.

    • Dan says:

      10:53am | 28/03/11

      Nice one Bron, cos we all know soldiers don’t kill people.

    • Reg says:

      05:11pm | 28/03/11

      Quote; “There are about two million firearms in circulation in Switzerland.
      The number of suicides is close to 1,500 a year. Suicide accounts for more deaths than car accidents, drugs and Aids together.
      Among those demanding tighter laws are Amnesty International, the Swiss Peace Council, the Victims of Violence Forum, the Stop Suicide Association, Ipsilon (the Initiative for the Prevention of Suicide in Switzerland) and the Swiss Society of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy.”

      Not to say that all are gun suicides as most are professionals using medications, although this too indicates the IMPULSIVE nature of the act.

    • shenanigans says:

      08:49am | 28/03/11

      lets get the Americans to paint huge smiley faces and stamp “How you doing?” on the side of their cruise missles and nuclear missles, ’ cos clearly if they want to pretty up guns they are going to want to pretty up weapons capable of killing even more people. isnt that what america is all about? isnt it?

      and if everyone carried a gun this world would be a very, very empty place.

      Reply

    • LP says:

      10:49am | 28/03/11

      Smiley faces on missiles sounds awesome!

    • Ex U.S. airforce weapons mechanic says:

      11:57am | 28/03/11

      shenanigans
      They already paint messages and smiley faces on bombs rockets and missiles. They do it at the end of the flightline before the planes take off.
      Been doing it for yonks.

    • Keith Hammersmith says:

      02:55pm | 28/03/11

      So have australians,  many aussie diggers from WW1 on would write messages on the side of shells and bombs in chalk before they were sent over to the enemy

    • NSW says:

      09:22am | 28/03/11

      Yet another sign of the decline of western society.

      Reply

    • Barry Crocker says:

      09:50am | 28/03/11

      Americans are MAD. The logic that if everyone carries a gun will make you safer is plain stupid

      Reply

    • L. says:

      01:49pm | 28/03/11

      Why?

      Just wanting to see if you can defend your reasoning..

    • marley says:

      07:46pm | 28/03/11

      Oh well, use the old comparison of murder and violent crime rates - Canada (tight gun controls) vs the US (open slather).  The latter has much higher statistics for murders, aggravated assaults and armed robberies than Canada does.  And Australia’s rates are slightly better than Canada’s.

      And, for our friend extolling the virtues of Texas, their rates for violent crime in general and murder in particular are higher than the American national average.

    • Keith Hammersmith says:

      09:50am | 28/03/11

      It is called Freedom.
      That is, being allowed to own something even though a bad person did something bad with that thing in the past.

      breaking news,  criminals still have guns.

      Reply

    • James says:

      10:51am | 28/03/11

      Well, after all the above comments, I’m glad that guns are banned in Australia. As a country you can’t hold your liquor, as any newsreader will attest by the nightly violence at Kings Cross. You don’t need guns to protect yourselves. As an American I welcome the right to keep and bear arms. As more people own guns it is proven that the crime rate goes down. People are actually safer when they own a gun. A man without a weapon is a subject of his government. A man with a weapon is a citizen.

      Reply

    • LC says:

      11:45am | 28/03/11

      I’m pretty sure there are people in America who can’t hold thier drink, or get into drunken fights. The main difference there though is in America they’d be more likely to end up in the big house, but here they’d only get community service.

      Won’t argue with your second point though.

    • James1 says:

      11:53am | 28/03/11

      While there may be correlation between gun ownership and crime rates, there is an even stronger correlation between accidental shootings and gun ownership.  You are far more likely to shoot a member of your family than you are an intruder, for instance.  This is also proven.  My point is, don’t think your guns make your family more safe.  Because the stats show, they actually make your family more likely to be shot and killed, albeit not by a criminal.

    • notSue says:

      12:23pm | 28/03/11

      Well said, James1, spot on.

      I also think if any of you gun- ownership- is -safer nongs ever saw a real human GSW (gunshot wound) you’d puke your guts up and melt them down for scrap metal in five minutes flat.

    • michael j says:

      03:25pm | 28/03/11

      Thats one thing about you Americans,while you pride yourself on being a citizen with a gun,you seem to execute your elected officials at will.
      goose, drink you under the table any day.

    • marley says:

      06:49pm | 28/03/11

      Well, as an Australian I stand about a quarter of the chance of being murdered, that an American does.  I like those odds.  And if it means Australians have to meet tougher licencing requirements, I’m good with that too. Kind of like I approve of our lower alcohol limit for drivers - if that means a bit less carnage on the roads, good.  Freedom in society has always been restricted by the interests of society as a whole.  We draw the line somewhere other than where Americans do - and we’re living longer, and less likely to be murdered.  Works for me.

    • notSue says:

      11:49am | 28/03/11

      Oh what total rubbish, James. That’s what’s wrong with America, a stupid constitutional hangover from the War of Independence that should have been dumped a couple of centuries ago and gun ownership laws tightened. The right to keep and bear arms was only enshrined in it in order to allow the militias to exist, in a time of need. You’re still paying the price for that piece of brilliant foresight..

      And Americans CAN hold their liquor? Not many, in my experience.

      Reply

    • James says:

      12:55pm | 28/03/11

      @ notSue, If you take the number of guns and gun-owners in the states, a very small percentage are killed or injured by firearms. I’m a grandfather with 3 children and I taught each one the safe handling of weapons and when or when not is the right time to consider a firearm. Yes we are given the RIGHT to own a firearm in America with very few restrictions and the criminals know it. The crime rate here has been going down for the past decade, so I guess its working. Yes, we still have militias and the day might come when we must take the drastic action of overthrowing a tyranical government right here. So sorry for the sheeple in Australia.

    • Muttley says:

      01:52pm | 28/03/11

      Dont feel sorry for us James, save your pity for the sad individuals still unfortunate enough to live in the US. Feel sorry for the poor police over there that have to do their job in a society drowning in firearms. Feel sorry for the paranoid trolls that feel they will lose their manhood if they have their guns taken away. I mean, what sort of insecurites must they be carrying to have such a dependance on guns? I enjoying target shooting but am glad the laws have been tightened as they were.

    • notSue says:

      02:19pm | 28/03/11

      @ James If they day ever comes when the loonies in existing militias ever wield enough power to commit treason on their own soil, America will have sealed it’s own fate by still allowing your stupid gun laws. Not that that scenario is very likely.Thankfully you have federal agencies which can control and imprison your extreme right wing yahoos.

      I was referring to the historical militias. It’s the only reason the clause was part of the Bill of Rights. It’s outdated and ridiculous that people cling to a historical glitch to excuse their own aggression, to the detriment of your society.

      Yes, don’t feel sorry for us. We’ve just proven incredibly powerfully that we can oust an unpopular government by the ballot box. Oh that’ s right, we *vote*, don’t we, unlike two thirds of apathetic Americans.

    • Keith Hammersmith says:

      02:58pm | 28/03/11

      @notsue,  technically we are forced to vote, and if you notice the party with the most votes in the country is not the one leading it.
      Our electoral system is very flawed.

      Just because someone is forced to vote doesnt make them not apathetic..

    • notSue says:

      03:27pm | 28/03/11

      @Keith. We aren’t actually forced to vote, we’re forced to show up. We can still write “get stuffed” on the ballot paper if we choose. I guess the fact that the majority of votes are formal, meaning some thought has been put behind the person’s choice (unless they donkey vote, which has been shown to be very rare) makes compulsory voting a system where the elctorate is forced to make a political decision once every 3 or 4 years. What a hardship!

    • DaveinPerth says:

      06:29pm | 28/03/11

      @James.  I’m with you brother. Power to the citizens !
      I think that every American of every age should have a Colt in one hand, and the Bible in the other. (And every TV station should be mandated to play ‘Red Dawn’ once per day.) 

      Now THAT would be a country that I’d be very keen to watch on the news. (From a very long distance away.)

    • James says:

      11:47pm | 28/03/11

      @ notSue. At least we had the balls to throw out the king (at that time) and make something better. The poor Australians still can’t bring themselves to do it, even peaceably, at the ballot box. Come on and join the 21st century. I don’t consider it “paying the price”, I call it “getting it right the first time.

    • Huey says:

      12:11pm | 28/03/11

      No right to bare arms! Shit! Ihate long sleeved shirts.

      Reply

    • Ben says:

      01:06pm | 28/03/11

      2 things happen when gun rights are tightened.

      1) Government increases in tyranny

      2) Crime goes up

      “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

      Thomas Jefferson


      There should be a Full reinvestigation of the Port Arthur Massacre, The way this was used to bring about uniform Gun Laws was all so convenient.

      and the fact is the Rights of Free Citizens were taken away on the basis of a few criminals..

      And yet when the amnesty happened all the free people handed in there Guns and the Criminals KEPT THERES!

      So what was the ultimate end?  Disarming the General populace.

      Did you notice how at Port arthur the general populace all had Guns? to defend themselves?  NO

      but the criminal had the Gun right?  YES  


      so why is the free citizen being bound by a Law that does’nt affect them.

      Hard questions easy answers,  that have not been asked and have not been answered because we have not had a legitimate royal commision or coronial inquest or investigation into the affairs of Government and Gun Control based on the Port Arthur Massacre.

      That is tyrannical Government. That is Government playing ruler,  Sorry but your not ruler of a free nation we rule you.

      “people willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both”

      benjamin franklin


      Welcome to the NWO

      Reply

    • Muttley says:

      01:54pm | 28/03/11

      my goodness, someone forgot to take their tablets this morning eh? Why the hell does the populace need to be armed? Who do you think is coming to get you?

    • LC says:

      04:26pm | 28/03/11

      Now that you got that off your chest Muttley, care to answer some of his questions?

    • Facts Up says:

      04:57pm | 28/03/11

      Me thinks you need to establish which country you’re living in.
      In the US the constitution gives them the right to bear arms…the Australian constitution does not.

    • James says:

      11:41pm | 28/03/11

      @ Ben. Very well said Ben. People get the government they deserve and we are suffering through with this one. Elections do have consequences and after the results of the last election (2010)  we are changing it.. 2 more years and the ship of state will right itself.

    • James says:

      11:56pm | 28/03/11

      @Ben. “An armed society is a polite society”. Robert Heinlein

    • Taswegian says:

      12:05am | 29/03/11

      Problem is Ben, he became a criminal by killing a lot of people. Before that he was just a nutter with easily obtained semi-automatic rifles and shotguns.
      There is a major flaw in your “Did you notice how at Port arthur the general populace all had Guns? to defend themselves?  NO” argument. Let’s say you and a whole lot of other people at Port Arthur had guns. You hear a lot of gunshots and hear people screaming. Some run past streaming blood.  You pull out your gun and see somone running towards you with a gun. Do you shoot them? Are they the nutter shooting people, or another person who for some unknown reason was wandering around a tourist attraction with a gun? Do they shoot you first?
      Only a mental lightweight like Bob Katter could front up on TV the day of the massacre and say “If only somone else had a gun”. Up until Port Arthur I was a regular shooter and collector of military rifles.  After that I kind of lost interest when my hobby was put in to perspective.

    • Govt.@FauxCitizen says:

      08:12pm | 28/03/11

      Paxton Quigley was a hardline Anti Gun lobyist, that was until she was violently raped,, nowdays a converted vehment pro gun lobyist she teaches women the empowerment of serious self defence with handguns,  her slogan,,, “NO ONE EVER RAPED A .38” , diamond encrtusted or not. Thousands of unarmed women might not be victims today if they too were trusted by governments as honest, responsible, law abiding citizens with the ability to defend themselves without dialing 000 first to speak to an operator then explain the story, then wait for the police to arrive “ho hum” , making a mockery of decorating handguns is akin to mocking everyone that owns a car with paint other than” Volvo Safety Orange or Yellow” in colour.,  a gun is a tool that is no more dangerous than a car , truck, aeroplane or diesel and fertiliser in the wrong hands. Ignorance is the breeding ground of fear and I think yours is a very scary, fearful, one sided story indeed Shannon O’meara.

      Reply

    • W. says:

      09:31pm | 28/03/11

      It all seems insignifigent,Darcy Freeman didnt die by being the victim of a gunshot

      Reply

    • Nate says:

      11:20pm | 28/03/11

      The facts are in.  Increased gun ownership reduces crime.  This is why the majority of states in the US have right to carry laws.  Every year millions of crimes are prevented and lives saved because law abiding citizens use their legally owned firearms to protect their lives and their property.  There are multpile pieces of legitimate research supporting the above. 

      To not accept that crime is reduced by legal gun ownership is like denying climate change.  The science is simply against you.  What options do you have?  Wait for the Police - when seconds count, Police are minutes away.

      What is irrational is the paranoid, uniformed fear of an inanimate object which is what a firearm is.

      I do agree on that point that firearms are serious business - not for accessorising and not for kids to play with.  Kids should be introduced to firearm safety in a controlled, serious manner.

      Reply

    • Nate says:

      11:30pm | 28/03/11

      Oh and for those suggesting that Howard’s gun buyback scheme somehow “worked” - please do your research.  In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn, noted that the level of legal gun ownership in New South Wales increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had had little effect on violence.”  He has also stated “The fact is that the introduction of those laws did not result in any acceleration of the downward trend in gun homicide. They may have reduced the risk of mass shootings but we cannot be sure because no one has done the rigorous statistical work required to verify this possibility.”

      In addition “A 2008 study on the effects of the firearm buybacks by Dr Wang-Sheng Lee and Dr Sandy Suardi of Melbourne University’s Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research studied the data and concluded that the Gun Buy Back Scheme did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates.”  This scheme cost half a billion dollars - imagine the benefits to society if this was spent on mental health, police, drug reduction strategies etc…

      Reply

    • michael j says:

      11:35pm | 28/03/11

      NOT MINE ,,DON’T KNOW THE AUTHOR,,BUT IT SURE IS FUNNY,,
      This Is Why We Can’t Have Nice Guns Around The House
      Okay, that is it. Timothy, Rebecca, come here this instant! I’ve simply had it with you two. I thought I heard a .357 Magnum round discharge, and sure enough, what do I find when I open the end-table drawer but your father’s still-smoking Desert Eagle. Just look at it! The nickel plating is scratched up, and what’s this on the trigger—peanut butter? Dear Lord, I suppose you thought you could just put it back and no one would ever notice?
      This is precisely why we can’t have any nice guns around here.
      Listen, you can cry all you want about how it was an accident, but that isn’t getting either of you off the hook. Timothy, you’re old enough to know when a firearm’s safety mechanism has been disengaged, and Rebecca, maybe if you set a better example for your little brother once in a while, he’d know that he shouldn’t be horsing around with the most expensive semiautomatic handgun in the house.
      I swear, you kids will be the death of me.
      I don’t care who started shooting first! I don’t want to hear it. You’re both in big trouble. You just wait until we’re back from getting Timothy patched up and your father hears about this. My heavens, this is worse than the time you two bent the firing pin on my good Glock 19 because you wanted to see if it could shoot .30-caliber rounds.
      Why do you do this? Is there something wrong with the guns you already have? They’re functional and plenty accurate, but you’re always leaving them outside or strewn across your playroom—honestly, it’s like one goes off every time I try to walk through that pigsty—never mind how hard your father works to keep this family supplied with ammo.
      Is it wrong that he and I want to have a few nice pistols in our home besides those same junky old double-action revolvers we’ve had since college?
      And don’t get me started on that crossbow you kids begged us for last Christmas! Sure, you spent the morning out in the yard shooting bolts straight up into the air, but it’s been collecting dust in the nursery ever since. Well, you’re both grounded until further notice. No new rifles, shotguns, butterfly knives, blow darts, throwing stars, morning stars, brass knuckles, no nothing. Not so much as a canister of pepper spray.
      Timmy, I see that smirk on your face, and you can wipe it off right now. This is no joke.
      You see, Paw-paw told me last week he wants to give you kids the Ingram MAC-10 from his arsenal. He knows how much you love that gun, so imagine how disappointed he’ll be when I tell him I don’t think his grandchildren are mature enough to handle a blowback-operated submachine pistol just yet. It’s going to break his heart.
      Yes, Rebecca, I know your birthday’s coming up, but until things change around here, there’s going to be a lot less gunfire in this house. And Timothy, I know you’re faint from blood loss, but try to pay attention. This is important.
      I’m at my wit’s end here. Every time one of you loses a finger, you swear it will be the last, but then next thing I know you’re out wasting a whole box of hollow-point. Not only are we running out of junkie veterinarians who don’t ask questions, but between bloodstains, growth spurts, and bullet holes, we can barely afford to keep you two in new clothes.
      Your father and I, we try so hard to raise you right. We just want you to have the weaponry we never had when we were growing up. Believe it or not, those nice guns, we’re trying to keep them nice for you. One day the Desert Eagle, the Smith & Wesson Model 29, the Soviet-era Kalashnikov, the dueling pistols, the mother-of-pearl-inlay Colt .45—they’ll all be yours Rebecca and…Timothy? Timothy, what did I just say?
      That’s it, no fishing trip for you this weekend. Nope. It’s off. I’m calling your father right now and telling him not to bother picking up that cache of dynamite on his way home.

      Reply

    • Nate says:

      11:42pm | 28/03/11

      Wow, more misinformation quoted above.  Some posters have suggested that a legal firearm owner in the US has a greater chance of injuring a family member than using it in self defence.  This is completely untrue - research shows that legally owned firearms are used millions of times per year (most often without a shot being fired).  The family/friends stat was actually pulled together by anti-gunners and is based on bad science - included are people that knew each other (ie illegal gun owners like gang members shooting each other).

      Reply

    • susie m says:

      01:34pm | 29/03/11

      south africa has many guns - goodies & baddies have access to them - there is also 55 murders per day out of a population of 40 million…(its a good stat -down from peak of 70 per day) a huge amount of murders are with guns….this is why i chose australia to live & bring up my kids…the best this john howard ever did

      Reply

    • Nate says:

      09:23pm | 29/03/11

      Susie M.  South Africa has significant cultural and social issues dating back decades.  Guns have no relationship with crime.  Take Sweden for example, where all able bodied males must have ownership of a military rifle - and be proficient in its use (tested regularly).  Gun crime and all crimes are very, very low.  As you can see in the research I quoted in my above posts you can see that Howard’s Gun Buyback Scheme was a massive waste of $ for no real outcome.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 28 May 12 12:01AM

#markwebber just wasted petrol faster than everyone else in monaco #f1

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 27 May 12 10:49PM

In my sports column on The Punch tomorrow: why Eurovision was easily the best game on the weekend. Mummy bloggers, you'll like this one!

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 27 May 12 10:12PM

The Logies could learn a lot from Eurovision #lamethings#sbseurovision

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 27 May 12 10:03PM

RT @ellehardytweets: Already despondent about the next fifty one weeks. #sbseurovision

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

by David Penberthy

180

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

by Paul Toohey

27

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

by Angela Mollard

3

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed