Appeal! as you probably know the actual real world big deal over owning a gun is no larger than it was before the ban, the administrative hoops are deliberately designed to reduce early and ongoing amenity and therefore total gun owner numbers. Might not be worth your while? that's what they where counting on one way or another.Originally Posted by finga
cheers fnq
The right to use reasonable force to protect yourself, others for whom you are responsible and your property has been enshrined in common law for centuries! It is a policy for making our society safer because it provides a deterrence and can prevent actual injury or damage. Just like police, jail and fines.
There will always be people who want to take or get things by force. Self-defence is our right as law abiding citizens to stop them illegally getting their way.
krill..you have that right now..with some restrictions on it.
So how many times have you been broken into ? Me..never.
How many times have you been bashed..me never.
I go out and the back door is always unlocked and open.
Yes and I don't want to see what we have now gone. I also have an open mind as to enhancing our abilities to defend ourselves from criminals.
I have had car loads of youths enter into my property in suspicious circumstances. Lucky I was home. Since then I have put increasingly tighter security measures in place. My brother had his car broken into in front of his house only weeks ago - in a burb where the houses cost $600k+.
Never. Mind you I live in the country and rarely frequent metropolitan areas. The last time I was on holiday down the coast I was walking back from the supermarket at night and harassed by a group of ferals ... wait for it ... while walking through a friggin cemetery back to the caravan park. If I would have been so inclined this could have easily turned into a fight situation. Imagine what sort of weidos are hanging out in a graveyard in the middle of the night looking for combat. Next time I will be taking the car. What's a bet these cretins would all be "known to police" and could be accurately denied access to licenced mace? Like I said before, I personally know someone who has been savagely bashed recently. It happens.
Yeah, in my personal fantasy dreamworld oxygen thieves like this would be sharing a cell on a prison island. The reality is that violent criminals are given piss weak sentences (if any) and roam the streets with abandon. After all, why would those in the "justice" system want to really clamp down on their meal-ticket? Less crime would mean less police, lawyers and judges.
Do you leave it unlocked because it is such a hassle to turn one key, or do you leave it unlocked to prove some sort of machismo point?
definitely..i sit there and sing "macho macho man " as all the bikie gang members, drug addicts and ferals walk in the door..just to see the looks on their faces when they see the barrel of the Howitzer. Actually, the laundry door is open all the time for the dog to have some shelter ..and the door from the laundry to the house is not lockable so therefore the house is open all the time...do I fear anyone coming in? nope. Not worried about it. Go away for a week at a time and same situation..never had a problem...and i live in the city..11k from the city centre.
I don't lock my house either. Nothing to do with machismo. I just don't want to have to.
Tim
Carbon Really Ain't Pollution.
How true FNQ,and there is a couple of generations,people between 18 to 30,that have realised that it's not that hard to get a license and be a firearm owner the result being a marked upturn in the industry (a good thing in my opinion),after all,why souldn't people be allowed to own a firearm if they want? I personally own a firearm for no other reason than I simply want it,one day I may use it in the mean time what harm is it doing?
Forgive me for not having read every post in this thread because most of these extreme political threads are a bit tedious, I find.
However, my skimming over quite a few of the posts suggests to me that the case being made by the gun lobby is based on fear of loss of personal safety by not being able to "defend" oneself or perhaps, even extract some retaliation for wrong-doings against the individual with a gun.
I am not so insecure a person that I walk the streets in fear in Australia anywhere at any time whether if be Mt Druitt in western Sydney with its reputation or Fortitude Valley on a Friday night.
Sure, I have been unsure of the intentions of a couple of blokes in the very early hours of the morning at the Jacobs Well boat ramp once but I just hung on to that ugly bit of metal that is my motor support bracket and kept moving all the time without exposing my back and after a while, they went. I did not need a gun.
The only time that I might sense danger is when I come across someone who is irrational because of grog or something a bit more potent. Would I want to use a gun in those circumstances? Definitely not. They are not in full control of themselves. Better to call the police.
Do I think that young women need danger awareness classes and self defence classes? Yes I do. I have taught my daughter where to kick an assailant really hard and how to scream and run like blazes whilst he is doubled over and I am delighted at what she has learnt from a police lady at a personal safety course that she attended recently. Do I want her to carry a gun just in case? Absolutely not!
I am just a slow talkin' country boy from western Queensland, but it seems to me that people who want guns for self defence in a wonderful place like Australia are insecure.
Do I want all of the insecure people in Australia to have access to a gun, "just in case?" Absolutely not!
How will I feel most secure as an average Aussie citizen? Knowing that every second person has a gun in their glovebox or under their coat or sitting by their bed?
Not likely!
I will feel most secure knowing that whilst there may be a few bad guys with guns, they are in the minority.
As a fisho, I have nothing in common with the gun lobby so any party representing the gun lobby has no chance of attracting my interest.
I have no issue with non-automatic weapons being licensed for sport but I don't accept the self defence argument at all.
That is my view and I am not interested in further debate. Take it or leave it.
.
Capsicum spray is legal in WA as long as your 18yrs+ it is available from any camping store and is such a big seller that they find it hard to keep it in stock! don't hear horror stories about it's misuse either.
What people need to realise is that the anti's hate ALL of us equally and want to ban us ALL into oblivion! if you care vote for who you think has your best interest's at heart.
Fair dinkum trying to have a constructive exchange with the old boy's club here has alway's reminded me of the saying
"In a village full of the blind the one eyed man is alway's king".
Do ya sing it while wearing a construction worker outfit as well? :-}
Establishes nothing. Some cretin could do you over tomorrow. Police continuously tell people to secure their houses.
It's like the airbag example I gave you a few pages back. Almost every airbag installed is never used. But because the consequences of not having one, like a violent attack, are extremely serious - like having your face/body mutilated or disabled for life or killed - nowadays everybody has them, and when I drive I have 10 of 'em.
Some people even smoke, when they have a nasty picture of a tumour on every pack. I couldn't care less how many blokes leave their stuff unlocked (bet you all secure any sh_t actually worth stealing, like your boats and tackle :-). Doesn't make it rational behaviour.
As for, how this self defence system would work, well why don't we take a radical approach which we never take in this country. Why don't we reward good behaviour and give those which a clean record of a certain duration the right to mechanisms to defend themselves. The parameters (what sort of mechanism / what good behaviour must be demonstrated to get it) depend on what we are talking about.
Instead in this country we have lowest common denominator laws. You can have a perfectly clean record for 50 years, be an upstanding citizen who has never wronged anyone, and your reward? Jack sh_t. Some mentally retarded cretin goes on a rampage and all of a sudden you are not allowed to efficiently cull rabbits with a semi auto .22 - the most popular firearm for the task, used for half a century without major incident. Doesn't matter who you are, what good deeds you have done, how you have lived your life, everybody is lumped in with the lowest common denominator dip sh!t and the wholesale ban goes through.
A big problem in Australia is that traditionally it has been farmers and working class people which have been actively engaged in work and sporting shooting. This is in complete contradistinction to Europe where firearms have been the traditional domain of the rich and the aristocracy. Hence in this country we have a culture of class distinction where those involved in shooting are looked down on. Go no further than your old smelly "dueling banjo" bait which kicked this off.
Exactly reminiscent of how I see the animal libbers and greenies talk about those who like sports which involve, say, hookin' an animal through the eyeballs, and towing it around for half an hour until another animal gets on board with a big hook in its gob, then fighting that one for a few hours, just for fun.
Anyway, I know who I am voting for. There's gonna be some shootin'. There's gonna be some fishin'. Good to see Al McGlashan on board as well. Imagine if we can get back into the marine parks like the shooters have got back into the state forests. Anything's possible if we get off our dates and take some direct action instead of bitching at each other like old women. When we stand in front of the ballot box, the power's in our hands - USE IT!
Had Bryant walked into a crowded yank store and started the shit he did in Tasmania I am willing to bet he would have been blown away by someone long before the taly reached the proportions it did down there.
Krill,
Its like I said earlier they are like the greens, can not be reasoned with, and will drag up red herrings. [see how charleville skirted around the debate about mace and went into the 'gun' mode to muddy the waters] This is a typical green technique.
It just shows how far we have moved from our Anzac forefathers when grown men are crapping themselves at the thought of a granny, or some bloke in a wheelchair, or thier wives/ daughters having a can of [non lethal] mace for self defence.
They must have to have counciling after using a filleting knife which is far deadlier then a can of non lethal mace.
Guys,
You need to know how the greens/anti's think and thier strategy in debate.
They will always try to trick you into an emotional response . eg, calling you banjo players, rednecks , little dicks, etc. This is to make you angry so when you crack they can say 'see I was right, you are a redneck'.
They will try to steer the debate into another area.[red herrings] eg, the debate about mace will shift to everyone carrying a gun. This has nothing to do with the debate, it is designed to frustrate and make you angry again as above. [ both these are signs they can not counter your arguement]
You can point out the lack of logic in thier arguement and they will completely ignore it. They can not admit they could be wrong as it is a belief system for them and it is scary to have your beliefs destroyed.
They will trot out dodgy statistics that have not been peer reviewed, or are out of date, or from a different country.
[The anti gun/anti fishing/ animal libbers, are expert at this].
You need to be aware of these tactics.
I don't agree with the need to arm people, and I particularly think giving Mace to Grannies is a bad idea. But as I said before, I may be wrong.
We have a philosophical problem here. There are essentially three groups:
(1) NO weapons, nothing, never.
(2) It's my right, and everyone's right, to bear arms.
(3) Everyone else, who to a greater or lesser extent believes in freedom balanced with responsibility.
Trouble is while (3) argues internally, (1) and (2) go about their business. (3) is a much bigger group, but can't get organised. It tries, but keeps pulling itself apart. A stab in the dark says we are all (3)'s.
The reality is that only (1) and (2) have an intellectually valid argument. (3) is just varied opinions along a continuum. (1) and (2) understand that, but (3) doesn't. Knowledge is Power. The truth is that this debate is not about weapons, it's about the degree of freedom people want. The bickering should stop, and (1) should become the target.
All (3)'s should agree to disagree, and get on with pulling down (1)'s trousers. They are the real threat.
Cheers,
Tim
Carbon Really Ain't Pollution.
Wrong....
Martin Bryant -35 dead
Virginia Tech -32 dead
The Santa slayer in LA -9 dead
Omaha shopping mall -8 dead
Killeen, Texas -23 dead
Oklahoma -14 dead
The list goes on
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...rica-shootings
So in a period of ...say 10 years how many deaths caused by guns happen in the US as compared to Australia??
They may not happen in the numers at one time BUT what is the numbers comparison over a 10-20 year period??
What about the numbers of crimes involving guns for the same periods and same places ie US and Australia??
Some more interesting reading. In the US in '99 there were about 80 deaths per day from guns and in 2000 there were over 75,000 reported gun shot injuries (and who knows how many unreported injuries)
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm
If you look at that report just have a close look at the graph.
I intend on living for-ever....so far so good
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote