New shooters and fishers political party

[krill]

too funny to respond

But did anyway? :-)

once more ..no need for a gun and no desire for one either.

Great. Happy for ya. Guess what, no firearm owner wants to force you to have one either.

This is about freedom. You, just like the anti-fishing brigade, want to impose your ideas on others.

You are perfectly free to put a big "rob me" sign on your house and sit on your couch in your birthday suit and then play rock-scissors-hammer with a home intruder.

But what about my freedom as a law abiding, tax paying, university educated citizen, without so much as a speeding fine to my name, to own a firearm?

[Awshucks]

I'll bet ya that Freud could have spelt "retarded" correctly.

BTW..who said anything about a fear of them...someone also said that a firearm is just for those that have a problem about appendage size...LOL

peta states the exact same thing on their web page in regard's to banning fishing.

[finga]

"A fear of weapon's is a sign of retarted sexual and emotional maturity". Quote Sigmund Freud.

Thank God I don't fear weapons. I just can't have one.
Yep, that's right. I cannot get a shooters license so I can blast a target at the local pistol club.
Go figure


I for one am against people carrying weapons of any description. I personally do not want Australia to end up like America.
I'd rather be like Hong Kong where you drop a paper your in the clink.

Actually I have a question for those with guns and mace and the like.
Why do you have/want to carry them??

It would be funny watching all the young inbred girls at the Browns Plains Shopping centre with the tight jeans, cut off tops, muffin tops with a gun sticking out of the plumber's crack....maybe they would have been better off buying some teeth instead (and a mirror).

Imagine 'The Valley' with guns??
I can see it now. At the local kebab shop at 3 in the am.
Oiii. That's my lamb with the works...
No it's not. You stepped out of line.
It's mine
No. It's mine.
BANG!!! Mine now ar$ewipe.

[PADDLES]

i agree with you shooters guys to a point, but agree with finga and pinhead completely. and also i'm not going to brand you guys as rednecks or the like. but if you want to use the filleting knife example then i believe you may be incorrect, correct me if i'm wrong. but is it illegal or is it legal to carry a concealed knife (the filleting knife in the kid's school bag) in a public area? ie. walking down the street to school.

again, i reckon that strict gun and weapons controls are absolutely required in modern society and we should leave the use of weapons against people to the authorities (and unfortunately also to criminals). the last thing i would ever want to see is people packing a gun to go to the shops.

i'll throw a hypothetical out there to add to finga's "valley scenario" above:

at least at the moment (by law) if someone gets a bit of road rage they have to go home and unlock/open the gun safe, load a weapon, chuck it into the car and go out to find the bloke who cut them off at the intersection. if it were made legal to have a weapon for self defence then it might be in their bag on the car seat next to them, they could get angry and just let fly. the suggestion that people in a modern first world country like ours should be able to carry weapons of any sort in public for self defence is utterly ridiculous. sporting or recreational shooting and obviously commercial shooting needs to go on as long as you are licensed.

[John L]

I thought the arguement was about mace , but guns seem to have crept into the arguement [ perhaps as a diversion].

As I said earlier mace is a non lethal weapon . You blokes and myself allready have knives around the place and I bet your kids could get thier hands on them pretty quickly.

As for knives being illegal to carry as a weapon, Well murder is also illegal and that isn't taken much notice of.

Knives are the most common weapon used in murders in Australia, far ahead of guns and allways have been.

The point I am trying to make is that you allready have more deadly weapons lying around your home [knives] and some people are wetting thier pants over a can of non lethal mace. Unbelievable.

[krill]

i'll throw a hypothetical out there to add to finga's "valley scenario" above

Great. But it's not Shooter's and Fishers party policy to allow people to carry firearms in public. Why argue a point by just making incorrect sh_t up?

the suggestion that people in a modern first world country like ours should be able to carry weapons of any sort in public for self defence is utterly ridiculous

Again - if by weapon you mean a firearm - who's suggesting this?

And note well: The Shooters and Fishers party will never have enough members in parliament to force legislation through. They might have enough to block the further erosion of our rights and freedoms though, which is a totally different kettle of fish to the anti-gun "what if" BS I am reading here.

[krill]

The point I am trying to make is that you allready have more deadly weapons lying around your home [knives] and some people are wetting thier pants over a can of non lethal mace. Unbelievable.

Yep it is the people of a society which determines its safety. Fists and feet are lethal weapons as well.

Take Switzerland as an example. Military service is compulsory and soldiers keep their own personal equipment, including all personal weapons such as assault rifles and pistols, at home. It is estimated there are 1.2 to 3 million firearms in private homes amongst a population of 7 million.

Police statistics for the year 2006 records 34 killings or attempted killings involving firearms, compared to 69 cases involving bladed weapons and 16 cases of unarmed assault. Cases of assault resulting in bodily harm numbered 89 (firearms) and 526 (bladed weapons). This represents a decline of aggravated assaults involving firearms since the early 1990s.

So ... more guns that the US and extremely low rates of gun crime. Much lower than in many countries with a lower gun density. Who woulda thunk it?

Time we concentrated on making society a more intelligent and less violent place rather than spread more BS about guns being the problem. Bad for business though, gotta keep those moguls in learjets and hookers while we pump out all those ultra-violent movies and vid games for the kiddies.

[finga]

Some stats from the US
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ore/facts.html (some stats a bit old but worth reading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vio...elated_to_guns

plus more more when you do a simple Google for illegal firearm use in the US.

One of the sad things I found, and personally would not have thought of, is the suicide rates using handguns. That is truely sad and enough reason for me not to allow guns into homes for any reason.

One reason the crime rates might be getting lower in the US is the absense of reporting of crimes.
People might be just getting used to it.

[PADDLES]

rightyo, i'm out, they're not getting my vote anyway purely based on their ideals.

i actually meant a weapon of any sort krill, not necessarilly a gun sorry for any confusion with the hypothetical.

if all this new party stood for was recreational issues then it'd be a lot easier for me to swallow.

[John L]

Krill,

I wouldn't bother argueing about guns with some of these blokes especially if the thought of granny or some poor bloke in a wheelchair with a can of [non lethal] mace to protect themselves with scares the crap out of them.

Some are like the greens, you just can not reason with them. They will keep on dragging up red herrings.

[finga]

Krill,

I wouldn't bother argueing about guns with some of these blokes especially if the thought of granny or some poor bloke in a wheelchair with a can of [non lethal] mace to protect themselves with scares the crap out of them.

Some are like the greens, you just can not reason with them. They will keep on dragging up red herrings.

OK then...what sorts of requirements will the average punter need to be able to carry a can of Mace??
Will it be restricted in sale??
What safe guards does a tin of Mace have to not allow accidental discharge??
Is Mace 100% safe to use against all people?? ie will it affect, say, people with bi-polar etc etc
Is Mace able to contain people off their heads like drugged out or drunk, violent offenders 100% of the time??

In an ideal society Granny should not need to protect themselves.
If it gets to the stage were my mum has to carry Mace to get a loaf of bread for lunch then it's time to shift countries.

New Foundland sounds good

[krill]

rightyo, i'm out, they're not getting my vote anyway purely based on their ideals.

i actually meant a weapon of any sort krill, not necessarilly a gun sorry for any confusion with the hypothetical.

Fair enough. But there are many dangerous weapons that people don't even carry. Examples:

(1) Physical attributes
(2) Training (boxing / martial arts)

Should we allow people to train to be extremely competent in smashing other people's faces in? What if little johnny who goes to kung fu classes and the gym each week gets in a road rage or kebab incident and decides to put method into practice?

if all this new party stood for was recreational issues then it'd be a lot easier for me to swallow.

Shooting is much bigger than recreational uses. I need a gun for work.

Anyway enough ranting from me, here are links to the party policies for anybody interested in the what they actually are...

http://www.shootersandfishers.org.au/policies/

http://www.shootersandfishers.org.au...27%20Party.pdf

[FNQCairns]

Correct me if I am wrong but around 5-8 years ago there was a big, full and independent study done to ascertain just what effect the banning of guns actually did have, was initiated by government to silence critics and promote the option of some slaps on their (Howards) back.

Statistically significant results, real unbiased decreases in crime, all that common stuff easily touted by anyone because it makes dinner table sense etc etc.

From memory the results highlighted only that the banning was indeed nothing more than just another political act.

Ever wondered why the dumbed down do-gooders touting opinion pieces as truths in the media just stopped! and have now for years been almost entirely silent on just how much better we are because of the banning??

Curiously governments are far to sophisticated to have any interest nor the will and therefore the statistics to ascertain at what level the banning of guns had on safety in the negative sense nor any decrease in nationwide well-being.

The do-gooders are as usual very happy to trade any individuals anguish or abused situation if it suit their ideology, how many extra per capita might still be alive, living a higher quality of life (perceived or real) or for any number of a myriad of reasons....if guns where not ever banned. Deliberately no one will ever know.

cheers fnq

[John L]

Finga,

As I said in an earlier post nothing in this world works %100 all of the time.

But it is a lot better than having no options at all and it is a free choice. Nobody is forced to have it if they feel they don't want or need it. It would be a personal choice for those who feel vulnerable.

If it were up to me, I would envision a licence similar to a firearms licence with a safety course where all the legal implications are explained , where, when and how it can be used , its limitations, how it works, safety aspects, etc, etc.

For those of you who have done a firearm safety course to get a firearms licence you will know what I mean.

[finga]

Finga,

As I said in an earlier post nothing in this world works %100 all of the time.

But it is a lot better than having no options at all and it is a free choice. Nobody is forced to have it if they feel they don't want or need it. It would be a personal choice for those who feel vulnerable.

If it were up to me, I would envision a licence similar to a firearms licence with a safety course where all the legal implications are explained , where, when and how it can be used , its limitations, how it works, safety aspects, etc, etc.

For those of you who have done a firearm safety course to get a firearms licence you will know what I mean.

I'd rather have a society where the need for such things in not required.
To me having policies to make our society safe is better then having a society having the right to use force to protect oneself.

To me it's like trying to treat an ailment by treating the symptoms and not treating the disease.

A good analogy is I keep getting a headache and have done for years. Do I take an aspro every 4 hours if it's a brain tumor??
The aspro's will only mask the disease not treat it.

And it looks like I'll never have Mace bacause they would not give me a shooters license.