http://www.youtube.com/v/ngsKzdKNAmo

Just for Abu - IT'S NOT REAL! But it is funny. I know that in Islam it is not permitted to find anything funny, so please watch it with a serious face.

Yes we need our guns for our own protection.

Not just for protection from the natural born killers, but most importantly, we need protection from the self-righteous - always have had.

http://www.youtube.com/v/pgNUqtkXTQ8

Another, from the NRA.

There are good arguments for and against guns, but if you look at the all the murders by kids in the US, who act impulsively and slaughter peers and family and then live to regret it for the rest of their lives - is it worth it?

It would be good to be able to protect ourselves with a small handgun, but if it got into the wrong hands, or we were overwhelmed by a strong unarmed attacker - it could result in regrettable consequences.

mantra wrote on Apr 7^th, 2009 at 10:23pm:

There are good arguments for and against guns, but if you look at the all the murders by kids in the US, who act impulsively and slaughter peers and family and then live to regret it for the rest of their lives - is it worth it?

The number of defensive uses of guns far outweighs the number killed through accidents. If guns are looked after properly, they are not dangerous.


Quote:

It would be good to be able to protect ourselves with a small handgun, but if it got into the wrong hands, or we were overwhelmed by a strong unarmed attacker - it could result in regrettable consequences.

If guns were so regrettable, the government wouldnt arm its people with them.  Guns are just a tool, if used properly an effective one.

If someone breaks into your house and you are unarmed and means you harm, unless you are a really good streetfighter with a  bit of luck you are dead. If you are armed with a pistol you have a chance.  If you are not armed, you are finished.

It is better for the state to have you unarmed and dead, than it is for you to be armed and alive, as the state likes to have the monopoly on violence and weapons. IE only its goons have guns in all circumstances. But if you are one of the regular people, waiting on hold while some home invader rapes your daughter and kills you is not preferable to being licensed to have a firearm.

We have been brainwashed with idiocy about weapons with the connivance of the state, to ensure we are disarmed. It's not a matter of living by the sword - people with swords kill other people without them.

mantra wrote on Apr 7^th, 2009 at 10:23pm:

There are good arguments for and against guns, but if you look at the all the murders by kids in the US, who act impulsively and slaughter peers and family and then live to regret it for the rest of their lives - is it worth it? It would be good to be able to protect ourselves with a small handgun, but if it got into the wrong hands, or we were overwhelmed by a strong unarmed attacker - it could result in regrettable consequences.

They are already in the wrong hands. Also you should not own one for self defence (or any reason) if you do not learn to use it with automatic properness and confidence.

You should also never pull a gun unless you are 100% prepared to use it and have been trained to abandon the stupidity of things like warning shots or shooting to injure.

IMO one of the best home defence weapons is a short barrelled 12 gauge shotgun known as a Coach Gun. (Something the coach driver's offsider would carry hence the expression "Riding shotgun") Anyway 12G side-by-side at close range it visually intimidating, easy to hit what you aim at, and even with mild loads that will not penetrate most house walls and should hopefully prove fatal for the intruder. Heavy loads such as SSG's or buckshot will penetrate most modern household inner walls

Dead intruders don't sue. Of course if someone is found guilty of being illegally/uninvited in your home they SHOULD automatically lose all access to the civil courts. And the home owner should recieve a " I helped clean up Australia and survived" Tshirt

Ultimately, it should be shoot first and ask questions later. Questions like, "Would you like me to pray with you?", "Do you see a light?", & of course "Could you give Elvis a message for me?"

There is a town in the southern states of the USA where a Bilaw says that every home should have a firearm. Apparently burglaries are very very rare.

Watch this simple but effective YOUTUBE presentation which explores both sides of the gun control issue.

And explains why we should all be concerned about, where base political power comes from, and who has the right to hold the arms [guns].


YOUTUBE
Gun Control
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=8RoMqB0VU4U





Another interesting presentation here, exploring how political power has been coveted by some, and slyly achieved.

In 6 parts, 0-5

1st part,
YOUTUBE
-DVD Version: INTRO - Individualism vs Collectivism
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=XMYicq_SN1E


Both of these YOUTUBE presentations are by the same guy.

He's an Aussie.

[I don't know him]




++++++++





Applying a little simple logic to this contentious issue.....


FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
Don't you admit that shooting rifles is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?

GENERAL COSGROVE:
I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
But, you're equipping them to become violent killers.

GENERAL COSGROVE:
Well, Ma' am, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?





AND,

Exploring more simple logic....




"Guns are no more responsible for killing people than the spoon is responsible for making Rosie O'Donnell fat."
--Some German guy ...

Yadda wrote on Apr 8^th, 2009 at 10:56am:

Applying a little simple logic to this contentious issue..... FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Don't you admit that shooting rifles is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children? GENERAL COSGROVE: I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm. FEMALE INTERVIEWER: But, you're equipping them to become violent killers. GENERAL COSGROVE: Well, Ma' am, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?

That is just Grand. :) :)

Calanen wrote on Apr 7^th, 2009 at 10:32pm:

....It's not a matter of living by the sword - people with swords kill other people without them.

That reminded me of.....


Aragorn: You have some skill with a blade.

Eowyn: The women of this country learned long ago, those without swords can still die upon them.

The Lord of the Rings - The Two Towers

General Cosgrove actually didnt say that, it's an old internet rumour that has used various personages as the author of it for a long time. Look on Snopes if you don't believe me.

There is a huge pressure from the state though for the people to be told, and actually believe that they are safer unarmed than armed. Ridiculous, and they firmly, truly actually believe it. Orwell would be pleased that his predictions came through so accurately. Remember the slogans they had? PEACE THROUGH WAR and the like. We could have one "BEING UNARMED IS BEING ARMED" and people would wholeheartedly agree.

I begin to despair at how easily the general populace is manipulated and fooled. Textbook was the pretext behind the Iraq invasion.

You only get 2 shots before a reload with a coach gun. Bring back the pump action shotguns!

Rifles and shotguns should be freely available without registration.

Not pistols.

You should be able to walk the streets with rifles and shotguns if accredited (which isn't kept on a database).

Not pistols.

I don't have a problem with pump action shotguns being bought back but while we wait for that never to happen there is the option of the lever action shotgun. I'll stick with the double barrel though. I've seen guys fire two shots, break the action and reload and fire two more shots in under 5 seconds. Short barrels mean a wider pattern at short range.

Personally, I'm a fairly low profile, law abiding person that neither seeks or makes trouble with anyone nor associates with trouble makers so have no expectation of crowds of intruders endangering my family. However the one or two that make the life-shortening mistake of posing even a potential threat to my family will have picked the wrong house.

I don't have a problem with people being licensed to own firearms. And I believe that licenses should be graded as they are now and that weapons be registered to a certain individual. I just think that many of the restrictions go too far, or in the case of not being allowed to own pistols over .40 caliber just stupid.

I think penalties for violent crime and intimidation should be increased across the board and penalties for firearms related crime should be ridiculously high. (I'm not talking here of a bloke heading to the range and has left his license on the table, maybe a fine but not a criminal activity).

It is hard to expect the public to grow up about the issue of firearms and yet when there is a suggestion of an extra tax on grog, (beats guns hands down for deaths and misery) there is overwelming public outcry. The public bought the pollies BS hook, line and sinker. What surprised me though is the police support for it all and the general ire directed at shooters during the buy back. Shooters are generally right of centre in their politics and very supportive of strong law and order issues and a strong justice system. Traditionally they have strongly support our police and armed forces.

Well I hate guns, but then again, I am not from Queensland, soooo, I would like to hear Calanen tell me how he came to the following conclusion.

"The number of defensive uses of guns far outweighs the number killed through accidents. If guns are looked after properly, they are not dangerous."--Calanen.

Any reason behind that statement, or are you like the suburban lawyer from "The Castle", and that is just 'the vibe' of it?

Now Locutious, who is certainly one person here who has earned my respect by constant fairness and good sense on nearly every issue I have seen him comment on, yet he seems pro gun also, so I would like to know what he means when he says,

"It is hard to expect the public to grow up about the issue of firearms"

I have always been opposed to the general public owning guns, with farmers, and hunters, being the obvious exceptions, and they should be strictly licensed.

I fear that the fact will always remain that if people are armed with guns, impulsive killings will rise, accidental killings will rise, and I really do not believe there will be an increased level of safety in the community from criminals, which appears to be the contention of the pro gun lobby.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 9^th, 2009 at 12:40pm:

Quote: "The number of defensive uses of guns far outweighs the number killed through accidents. If guns are looked after properly, they are not dangerous."--Calanen. My family has owned guns in this country for 211 years. Lot's of guns. Nobody was injured, shot, maimed killed, many families had 10 or more kids. A pack of matches is dangerous in the hands of an idiot. Are you an idiot? Then perhaps you cannot be trusted with a gun, or a pack of matches. I am not an idiot, so I can be trusted with a gun. [quote]Any reason behind that statement, or are you like the suburban lawyer from "The Castle", and that is just 'the vibe' of it?

I could post reports, but, no one reads any of the articles, posts, UN reports, stats or anything else I post - so why bother.


Quote:

"It is hard to expect the public to grow up about the issue of firearms"

I know what he means. The state has conditioned you to believe that you are the children in its society, and naughty children dont get guns, they'll just hurt themselves. Whereas the adults, the enforcers of the state, can ALWAYS be trusted with their guns, who of course in their hands pose no danger to anyone and are magically safe - unlikes the dangerous, nasty, evil weapons which would be very very bad in the hands of civilians.


Quote:

I have always been opposed to the general public owning guns, with farmers, and hunters, being the obvious exceptions, and they should be strictly licensed.

That's exactly what the state would like you to believe, and I am sure they are glad you believe it. Once people knew that the state is only a collection of people, and people should be responsible for their own safety.


Quote:

I fear that the fact will always remain that if people are armed with guns, impulsive killings will rise, accidental killings will rise, and I really do not believe there will be an increased level of safety in the community from criminals, which appears to be the contention of the pro gun lobby.

Say there is 1 guy, just 1 guy. And he lives with his wife, and kids. A person breaks into the house. The father is unarmed. He is killed, his wife is raped in front of the kids. The kids die. The wife dies. If the husband had a gun, the perp dies or runs and everyone lives.

Doesn't happen you say? Would you like some real life examples posted here?

For society, his death, and that of his family means nothing. It is better that nobody has guns and this family dies, than it is for the family to be armed and them to live. For the public the family is 'Only ONE example, and hardly proves an argument....'

But what if that one family is you, and that wife is yours, and those kids are yours? Then the statistics do not mean very much, and society's RIGHT to disarm you doesnt mean very much either. Every man should have the ability to deal with the threat posed by an intruder. At the moment, no man has that ability, which is a crime of a far greater magnitude.

Quote:

Every man should have the ability to deal with the threat posed by an intruder. At the moment, no man has that ability, which is a crime of a far greater magnitude.

I think that this is the bottom line.
If somebody takes away your ability to protect yourself and/or loved ones, then they are taking responsibilty for that protection. If they don't deliver on their "contract", then this should make them liable. Of course being a legal person yourself Calanen, you know that they are not liable because no such contract has been entered into...or has it?

locutius wrote on Apr 9^th, 2009 at 11:07am:

I don't have a problem with pump action shotguns being bought back but while we wait for that never to happen there is the option of the lever action shotgun. I'll stick with the double barrel though. I've seen guys fire two shots, break the action and reload and fire two more shots in under 5 seconds. Short barrels mean a wider pattern at short range. Personally, I'm a fairly low profile, law abiding person that neither seeks or makes trouble with anyone nor associates with trouble makers so have no expectation of crowds of intruders endangering my family. However the one or two that make the life-shortening mistake of posing even a potential threat to my family will have picked the wrong house. I don't have a problem with people being licensed to own firearms. And I believe that licenses should be graded as they are now and that weapons be registered to a certain individual. I just think that many of the restrictions go too far, or in the case of not being allowed to own pistols over .40 caliber just stupid. I think penalties for violent crime and intimidation should be increased across the board and penalties for firearms related crime should be ridiculously high. (I'm not talking here of a bloke heading to the range and has left his license on the table, maybe a fine but not a criminal activity). It is hard to expect the public to grow up about the issue of firearms and yet when there is a suggestion of an extra tax on grog, (beats guns hands down for deaths and misery) there is overwelming public outcry. The public bought the pollies BS hook, line and sinker. What surprised me though is the police support for it all and the general ire directed at shooters during the buy back. Shooters are generally right of centre in their politics and very supportive of strong law and order issues and a strong justice system. Traditionally they have strongly support our police and armed forces.

Lever guns are slower than a pump action. You can get pump action rifles so why not shotguns? Stupid law.

The length of the barrel has nothing to do with the spread of the shot. Seriously, it doesn't. And when it comes to shotguns, velocity also isn't affected like a rifle when it comes to barrel length.

Gun licenses are pointless, as is registration. It does nothing to stop criminal availability of firearms.

Everyone should be able to get a rifle or shotgun.

People accredited should be allowed to walk the streets with them.

Pistols should be somewhat restricted.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 9^th, 2009 at 12:40pm:

Well I hate guns, but then again, I am not from Queensland, soooo, I would like to hear Calanen tell me how he came to the following conclusion. "The number of defensive uses of guns far outweighs the number killed through accidents. If guns are looked after properly, they are not dangerous."--Calanen. Any reason behind that statement, or are you like the suburban lawyer from "The Castle", and that is just 'the vibe' of it? Now Locutious, who is certainly one person here who has earned my respect by constant fairness and good sense on nearly every issue I have seen him comment on, yet he seems pro gun also, so I would like to know what he means when he says, "It is hard to expect the public to grow up about the issue of firearms" I have always been opposed to the general public owning guns, with farmers, and hunters, being the obvious exceptions, and they should be strictly licensed. I fear that the fact will always remain that if people are armed with guns, impulsive killings will rise, accidental killings will rise, and I really do not believe there will be an increased level of safety in the community from criminals, which appears to be the contention of the pro gun lobby.

John Howard hated guns. Who do you hate inanimate objects?

Why are you opposed to the public having guns? You think the government should be the only ones armed? Or do you have people after you and are scared?  I can't see a reason for anyone not wanting guns in the community. After all, there are more sane rational people than rapists, murderers, paedophiles et al, and people like that seem to have access to firearms anyway, and if they don't, knives or other types of weapons.

I had an illegal machine gun in my bedroom from a certain age till about 16. After that I had a sawn off shotgun for a little while.

I've never accidently shot someone or had an accident with a firearm in my hands.

There's nothing wrong with people owning firearms.

Calanen wrote on Apr 10^th, 2009 at 12:06am:

I could post reports, but, no one reads any of the articles, posts, UN reports, stats or anything else I post - so why bother.

Post them, someone might read them, random traffic from a google etc.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 9^th, 2009 at 12:40pm:

Well I hate guns, but then again, I am not from Queensland.....

moz,

Why do you 'hate' guns?

Firearms are inanimate objects.

Do you hate rocks too?

How about kitchen knives?

How about lounge room slippers?

How about cars, buses, and trucks?

I would guess that every year, vehicles are 'responsible' for upto 3,000 deaths on Australian roads.

Is that a 'good' reason to 'hate' vehicles?






Do you 'hate' motor vehicles with the same passion, with which you 'hate' firearms?

And to demonstrate you commitment to safe highways, do you bicycle and walk everywhere - because motor vehicles 'cause' the deaths of too many innocent ppl?

Or is that an irrational assertion/suggestion, on my part?

Perhaps it is just that you 'hate' what firearms are capable of [i.e. killing ppl]?

Perhaps you don't 'hate' firearms, so much as, you are fearful of firearms?

Personally, i am respectful of dangerous circumstances, and respectful of potentially dangerous objects, but i don't 'hate' or fear, inanimate objects.

To adopt that approach seems too irrational, for me.

And i like to think that i am a rational person.            :P

I think that motor vehicles, and firearms, are both tools, are potentially dangerous, and that we should learn to treat them with respect.

But not ban them,
.....except to make them as difficult as possible to obtain, by criminals.iQuote:

I have always been opposed to the general public owning guns, with farmers, and hunters, being the obvious exceptions, and they should be strictly licensed. I fear that the fact will always remain that if people are armed with guns, impulsive killings will rise, accidental killings will rise, and I really do not believe there will be an increased level of safety in the community from criminals, which appears to be the contention of the pro gun lobby.

moz,

Back in the late 1990's my nephew came out to Oz, visiting from the UK.

One day the issue of gun control came up.

My nephew, it turns out also has a rabid 'hatred' [fear] of firearms.

He explained that he supported the UK firearm ban, recounting that he himself, had been threatened [in the UK] by a person wielding a pistol.

I then [factitiously] pointed out to my nephew, how 'impossible' [in the UK] such an occurrence was.

That such a circumstance happening in the UK was impossible,
.....BECAUSE PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF PISTOLS IN THE UK IS BANNED, BY LAW.



But here we have the circumstance in the UK, that sane [peaceable] ppl are barred by law, from possessing pistols [or owning a firearm for self defence].

Yet clearly, such laws have no effect upon criminals in the UK.

I then suggested to my nephew, that perhaps sane [peaceable] ppl should be allowed to posses firearms for self defence, of themselves, and the community.

But my nephew objected to that suggestion, stating that it would be too difficult to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.

Duh!!
[.....a blood relative too!]

I pointed out criminals already ignore bans on pistols, or other firearms!

Perhaps [i suggested] we should be allowing sane [peaceable] ppl to posses firearms - - - TOO!!

My nephew rejected my logic, and insisted, that guns are dangerous, and that the community was always safer, if all guns would be banned!

Logically, such an argument has no merit [in my opinion].




LET ME EXPLAIN....

For argument sake....

Lets say, 90% of a community are peaceable, hard-working, law respecting ppl.

And lets say, that the remaining 10% of that community are inclined to rob, steal and murder their-way-through-the-other 90% of the ppl in that community.

Q.
Do the peaceable 90% of a community have a RIGHT, to expect that 'someone' should protect them from the miscreant 10% of that community?

Q.
And if the peaceable 90% of a community were prevented [by law] from arming themselves for self protection [because firearms are 'dangerous'],
....then how would the 90% then be protected from criminals?

A.
Would the 90% then be protected from criminals, by the police?



Well, right here, lets get one thing straight, the function of the police ['service'], is to protect the political state.

It is not the function of the police ['service'] to protect citizens [as individuals], from violent criminals.

And that position [that police can not protect individuals from criminals], is something police spokespersons have stated many times.




Q.
Is it reasonable, is it rational, that the peaceable 90% of a community should be made defenceless, and subjected to increased levels of crime, and violence,
.....to protect the state, or,
.....to protect criminals from 'work related' violence?

Q.
If yes, then you need to explain why?




MORE.....

CONTINUED FROM LAST POST.....






And now we come back to.....

Q.
Do the peaceable 90% of a community have a RIGHT, to expect that 'someone' [else] should protect them from the miscreant 10% of that community?

A.
No.

Q.
Why?

A.
Because it is not practical, or rational, to believe that somebody else, is responsible for your personal safety.

A.
Because it is dumb, to expect others will risk their life, to protect your life [because you are too cowardly to do so].



So....

Q.
Do the peaceable 90% of a community have, A RIGHT TO PROTECT THEMSELVES, from criminals and evil doers?

A.
In my opinion, yes.








CONCLUDING....

Surely, it is better to also allow firearms to be in the hands of peaceable citizens, and not just in the hands of criminals [and the agents of the government]?

Empowering peaceable citizens, to defend themselves from the actions, and intent, of violent criminals, makes sense [in my opinion].




Q.
Under such a proposition, who would/should be barred from legally possessing firearms?

A.
Criminals and the insane, and anyone convicted of a crime involving any level of violence, and those who have demonstrated social irresponsibility.
.....e.g. those with a conviction for assault, burglary, robbery, house breaking, drink driving, etc.


Q.
What should society do with people who use firearms in the commission of a crime?

A.
In my opinion, they should be sentenced to hang until dead, OR sentenced to life imprisonment [never to be released].


Q.
Who would have access to firearms [for self protection]?

A.
Anyone over the age of 21 who had demonstrated that they are sane, peaceable ppl.

Q.
How can we determine sanity in an individual?

A.
By examining their past behaviour.

I believe that typically, an unrestrained sane person will always act in ways which are harmless to others, and in ways which are creative, and productive [for himself, others, and society].

And typically, and conversely, an unrestrained INSANE person will act in ways which are harmful and destructive to himself and, or, others around him.

Its not rocket science.

At the moment, many liberal governments tolerate a situation where...

• criminals [be default] have access to firearms.
  
• citizens are left defenceless, and barred from the ownership of firearms [for self defence], ostensibly, 'to protect the community' from firearm violence.
  

ALTERNATIVELY....

Still want a general ban on all firearms [self defence]?

OK, lets go 'the whole hog'.

Disarm the police service, and disband our armed defence forces too.

Because that is the 'logic', of applying diminishing force, to external aggression.

Because aggression, is overcome by surrender to it.
/sarc off

If we disbanded our armed defence forces, we could fund a lot more hospitals and universities too!       :P







Human history tells us, about the nature of 'real politique'.....



"Right is only in question between equals, and while the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must."
Thucydides (460-400 B.C.) Greek Historian

Report on defensive uses of guns, that no one will read.

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz1.htm


Quote:

The most technically sound estimates presented in Table 2 are those based on the shorter one-year recall period that rely on Rs' first-hand accounts of their own experiences (person-based estimates). These estimates appear in the first two columns. They indicate that each year in the U.S. there are about 2.2 to 2.5 million DGUs of all types by civilians against humans, with about 1.5 to 1.9 million of the incidents involving use of handguns.

DGU - is defensive gun use.

Gun nuts? Why do I always get the impression that gun lovers develop their ideas on guns and self defense from hollywood movies?
They all want to be like Clint Eastwood, and have such a distorted concept of reality that they actually picture themselves with a pistol holstered at the ready, to face any threat from the armed criminal element they believe is so prevalently threatening them.

To use the ridiculous arguments about women being raped as being avoidable if they carried guns, is just sheer lunacy, the fact is that hollywood style scenarios where the bad guys alert you to their intentions, and then allow for you to organise your weapons of defence before proceeding, is frankly laughable.

Then we have the theory that if everyone had a gun in the house, criminals would be too scared to rob it, for fearing of having John Wayne saunter in and blow 'em away.

Well, the fact is that there are very few home invasions, and most robberies are perpetrated upon homes when the occupants are out, so unless you have a remote control arsenal, then your guns are of no value in protecting your property.

However, while you were out, you had that total freakin jerk, cut you off in the traffic, and nearly made you crash.
Of course you abused him, he abused you, and when you both pulled over to take it further, luckily you were both armed, and honour could be restored.
At least you can now sleep safely knowing that you have removed another bad driver from the roads.

Little Johnny is not fitting in at school, he is listening to freaky music, and talks of suicide.
He was going to take a bottle of pills to end it all, but if he takes dad's gun, he can get all those smarmy creeps who never liked him, and take them out first, that will show 'em.

Guns do not make the community a safer place, and any who believes they do, is just seeking to justify their personal desire to be armed.

Law enforcement people should be armed.
It is the role of law enforcement to protect us, and we will be safer if we leave it up to them.

If people are really concerned about safety in the community, then they should look at having the drug prohibition laws changed, because the vast majority of property crimes are committed by addicts, who need the money for drugs, remove that need, and the crime rate will plummet.

Then there is alcohol fueled violence, which is already bad enough, but put guns in the hands of the drunks, and I contend the results will be far worse.

So I just don't believe in your fantasy scenarios where people will be more secure if everyone is armed, if security is what you really want, then better law enforcement, and better laws, is what you really should be promoting.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 11^th, 2009 at 12:21pm:

Gun nuts? Why do I always get the impression that gun lovers develop their ideas on guns and self defense from hollywood movies?

I've worn a gun, and used a gun. Have you? If not, then maybe your view of guns is from the movies, not mine.


Quote:

To use the ridiculous arguments about women being raped as being avoidable if they carried guns, is just sheer lunacy, the fact is that hollywood style scenarios where the bad guys alert you to their intentions, and then allow for you to organise your weapons of defence before proceeding, is frankly laughable.

Did you read the report on defensive gun uses? Normally entery into a home is preceded by break and enter, smashing a window a door, movement. Get your gun, and you can defend yourself. Why is it ridiculous to have a gun in that situation?

If guns really were too dangerous to ever use, the police and the army wouldn't have them either. It's just a myth you have been sold on, effectively it seems, to feel better about being unarmed.


Quote:

Then we have the theory that if everyone had a gun in the house, criminals would be too scared to rob it, for fearing of having John Wayne saunter in and blow 'em away.

No that's not it at all. What I'm saying is that if people break in, and they do, you wont be left holding your d*ck instead of a gun, when the guy robbing you is going to be *at least* armed with housebreaking implements, and doesnt give a flying bugger whether you live or die. I spoke to one professional burglar who did time for malicious wounding - caved a guy's head in with a crowbar and he's brain damaged for life. I asked him 'If he had a gun would you have hit him' and he said 'bugger no - lucky for us no one has guns in Australia.'


Quote:

Well, the fact is that there are very few home invasions, and most robberies are perpetrated upon homes when the occupants are out, so unless you have a remote control arsenal, then your guns are of no value in protecting your property.

Ok so because there are very few fires, you don't have fire insurance or sprinklers? It doesnt matter how few there are, if its you, and you die, is that acceptable because of the gun control mantra?


Quote:

However, while you were out, you had that total freakin jerk, cut you off in the traffic, and nearly made you crash. Of course you abused him, he abused you, and when you both pulled over to take it further, luckily you were both armed, and honour could be restored.

What a load of crap. How is having a gun at home the same thing as having a gun in a car. I was a security guard, who wear a gun. A lot of people abused me, or caused trouble or whatever, and I NEVER thought of taking my gun out, ever.  Its just ridiculous - the same way cops dont shoot people for abusing them (usually). It's just a stupid argument used by someone who is sold on the domesticated sheep argument. If you are a sheep, you can be slaughtered - and its ok because thats good for the greater good.


Quote:

At least you can now sleep safely knowing that you have removed another bad driver from the roads.

Again - stupid argument.

Little Johnny is not fitting in at school, he is listening to freaky music, and talks of suicide.


Quote:

He was going to take a bottle of pills to end it all, but if he takes dad's gun, he can get all those smarmy creeps who never liked him, and take them out first, that will show 'em.

And how often does that happen - a lot less than home invasions. You go down to the District Court, any day, and there are break and enters, assault on occupant, firearms offences. it doesnt make the news, but its there, day after day after day.  No video, no news.


Quote:

Guns do not make the community a safer place, and any who believes they do, is just seeking to justify their personal desire to be armed.

Ok then, lets disarm the army, the police and security guards. And make the community far safer. Oh, we cant disarm the crims you say? Im sure they will agree to abide by the new laws - they are crims after all.


Quote:

Law enforcement people should be armed. It is the role of law enforcement to protect us, and we will be safer if we leave it up to them.

And when they only enforce traffic o


Quote:

If people are really concerned about safety in the community, then they should look at having the drug prohibition laws changed, because the vast majority of property crimes are committed by addicts, who need the money for drugs, remove that need, and the crime rate will plummet.

That's not going to happen, not ever. I am not out to change the world, I just want a gun in my house so if some nutjob breaks in I can deal with it. That's all. And who are you to tell me I cant have one?


Quote:

Then there is alcohol fueled violence, which is already bad enough, but put guns in the hands of the drunks, and I contend the results will be far worse.

I'm not a drunk. How many alcohol fuelled gun episodes are there with guns each year in Australia? How many were there ever?


Quote:

So I just don't believe in your fantasy scenarios where people will be more secure if everyone is armed, if security is what you really want, then better law enforcement, and better laws, is what you really should be promoting.

We've got great laws, rolls royce laws, that are not enforced. The Police care only about traffic laws.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 11^th, 2009 at 12:21pm:

Gun nuts? Why do I always get the impression that gun lovers develop their ideas on guns and self defense from hollywood movies?

Because you might be autistic and autistic people have a hard time coming to grasps with the concept of others having minds? Or maybe that is just how you think when the idea of having a gun on your person crosses your mind, and you are fearful other people out there are as psychologically unbalanced as yourself?


Quote:

They all want to be like Clint Eastwood, and have such a distorted concept of reality that they actually picture themselves with a pistol holstered at the ready, to face any threat from the armed criminal element they believe is so prevalently threatening them.

Wrong. See my previous response in this post.


Quote:

To use the ridiculous arguments about women being raped as being avoidable if they carried guns, is just sheer lunacy, the fact is that hollywood style scenarios where the bad guys alert you to their intentions, and then allow for you to organise your weapons of defence before proceeding, is frankly laughable.

You're an idiot. Why is it that you have issues with people who are law abiding possessing firearms for self defence? If they are law abiding what is the issue? If they are law abiding they don't need registration or licensing,  because they will obey the law. It's not like owning and registering a car where damage is caused to the road when driving and registration is essential for maintaining the roads.


Quote:

Then we have the theory that if everyone had a gun in the house, criminals would be too scared to rob it, for fearing of having John Wayne saunter in and blow 'em away.

There is evidence to support that theory from various districts in America. Also, the Japs didn't invade Australia because we had a heavy gun culture back in those days, and they felt it would be impossible to occupy us.


Quote:

Well, the fact is that there are very few home invasions, and most robberies are perpetrated upon homes when the occupants are out, so unless you have a remote control arsenal, then your guns are of no value in protecting your property.

You can replace property, you can't replace people. The facts are you are very unlikely to have a fatal car accident. Do you wear a seatbelt?


Quote:

However, while you were out, you had that total freakin jerk, cut you off in the traffic, and nearly made you crash. Of course you abused him, he abused you, and when you both pulled over to take it further, luckily you were both armed, and honour could be restored. At least you can now sleep safely knowing that you have removed another bad driver from the roads.

Just because you are an angry old man who enjoys throwing weight around and getting involved in confrontations, does not mean the rest of us are. See first reply in this post.


Quote:

Little Johnny is not fitting in at school, he is listening to freaky music, and talks of suicide. He was going to take a bottle of pills to end it all, but if he takes dad's gun, he can get all those smarmy creeps who never liked him, and take them out first, that will show 'em.

Define freaky music. Discussing suicide is wrong why? Do you think you are from the thought police? Just because you have a dark mind and live in fear of people, perhaps for past wrongs you have committed, doesn't mean the rest of us are as like you.


Quote:

Guns do not make the community a safer place, and any who believes they do, is just seeking to justify their personal desire to be armed.

If they didn't make the community a safer place, then why do police insist on being armed? Seriously, why are you scared of people having firearms? Got people after you? Done horrendous things in the past? If someone wants to kill you, really wants to kill you, they don't need a gun. They could use their hands, a cricket bat, petrol, a car, poison etc etc.


Quote:

Law enforcement people should be armed. It is the role of law enforcement to protect us, and we will be safer if we leave it up to them.

If there was a cop every 100m throughout the country that MIGHT work. Police solve crimes. It is rare that police are on the scene as a crime is being committed. They don't protect us.


Quote:

If people are really concerned about safety in the community, then they should look at having the drug prohibition laws changed, because the vast majority of property crimes are committed by addicts, who need the money for drugs, remove that need, and the crime rate will plummet.

Hey, lets not give responsible people guns, but lets give junkies ice and heroin! You really are clueless, aren't you? Addict crime is nothing, it's petty. You didn't think of the social consequences of giving addicts easy access to drugs did you? So why should we listen to your insane rants on victim disarmament?


Quote:

Then there is alcohol fueled violence, which is already bad enough, but put guns in the hands of the drunks, and I contend the results will be far worse.

You're an idiot. This has already been established though.

Quote:

So I just don't believe in your fantasy scenarios where people will be more secure if everyone is armed, if security is what you really want, then better law enforcement, and better laws, is what you really should be promoting.

That's because you're clueless. Less laws tougher punishments. And an armed citizenry. There is proof that people will be more secure with firearms. There is statistical evidence that, globally, the criminalisation of firearms correlates to an increase in the violent crime rate.

Remember I wrote about that teacher at my school nicknamed mozza who received anal sex from a student in his office?

Another thing about that fool. He approached a year 7 girl when she was very new, gave her a book called 'Lolita', used to provide her with  wax for removing body hair, and would have her over his house for 'tutoring', she would even sleep over sometimes. Apparently threatened her with videotapes.

He ended up joining the freemasons also.

What's in a name?

Surely just a meaningful coincidence?

Concealed carry states have LESS crime, a lot less crime in the USA. And people there said it would be like the gunfight at the OK Corral, blah blah. But you have to get your local sheriff to sign you up, you spend some time with the cops learning how to shoot and so on. If you are a nutjob, you dont get a license. But if you pass the tests, can shoot, and are a decent citizen, you do get a license to concealed carry.

There have been quite a few incidents wear concealed carry people have stopped massacres, but the liberal media HATES reporting on them. And often doesnt, just saying, 'the suspect was stopped and arrested' - not, an armed citizen took him out. Indeed, when one of the first masacres happened, the Texas Bell Tower one, it was a local man with a shotgun that raced up to get the perp, with the cops, as there was no SWAT team way back then.

As for the kids in school with problems, I want to initiate a country wide plan of psychiatric help and diversion for kids that get picked on. One that identifies kids in trouble, and if necessary, transfers them to another school district and helps them with social skills and so on. If you get kids early they can be productive members of society. When I was a kid, there was another kid at school that everyone picked on. I was reminded, when he died, by another guy at school that I had said a few years before 'That guy is either going to kill himself or a whole lot of other people.' He said he was going to bring a gun to school, but a friend of mine talked him out of it, and got him some psych help. No one else knew. He then went into a psych clinic, and jumped off the roof.

Now if that kid had been given psych help early on, he'd still be with us. In another twist, his brother killed his girlfriend and is doing 20 years or something. Strange family.

Being able to hit your target, demonstrates,

...Good Gun Control.

You must be a pretty ordinary solicitor if they are the best arguments you can muster, Calanen.

The only scenario you present as justifying your desire to have a gun, is to protect yourself during a home invasion.

Now if you have any statistics concerning any violent home invasions in Australia, I would love to see them.
I can recall about three or four in my lifetime.

Of course I am not talking about domestics, where one partner locks the other out, I am sure those types of disputes are more common, but the real scenario you pretend to be concerned about, violent criminals, targeting your property, whilst you are inside.

If you can provide any statistics to show that is not rarer than an honest politician, then I will re-appraise the issue, but I do not believe you can.

Now let's look at another scenario, you want all citizens, who are of good character, and who do not have a violent criminal record, to have the right to own, and carry guns.

How many good aussie muslims would fit into your criteria?
How would you feel if the 90% or so of muslims in australia, that are good, honest citizens, with no criminal record, all suddenly were allowed to carry guns?

Don't bother answering, because we know how you would feel, you would not want it to happen, because you do not trust them.

Well I don't trust you, and I feel the same about someone like you carrying a gun.

The simple fact is that we are all much safer if there are fewer guns, and the fewer the better.

We just need to facilitate the police to be able to do their jobs, as well as we can, and let them carry the guns, and let them get the bad guys, to suggest that we should have armed vigilantes to assist them, is ridiculous.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 11^th, 2009 at 4:17pm:

You must be a pretty ordinary solicitor if they are the best arguments you can muster, Calanen.

Forget the insults on my job. It is fair to say that I spend a bit more time on my cases than I do on forum posts. It has become a past time of some on here to criticise my alleged lack of clients, business, money and ability - although, it may surprise you to learn that what is said on here changes my reality not one bit.

How about dealing with my arguments instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks?


Quote:

The only scenario you present as justifying your desire to have a gun, is to protect yourself during a home invasion.

Yes. That's the only one that matters.


Quote:

Now if you have any statistics concerning any violent home invasions in Australia, I would love to see them.

I keep having to do work for you, and that's dull. Please do your own research. Even if there is one a year, if that one is you - I bet you would wish you had a gun.


Quote:

I can recall about three or four in my lifetime.

They happen ALL THE TIME the courts are full of them. Three or four in a lifetime. Gees they could close the courts for good and repeal the home invasion section if that were true. When I post the links they just get ignored so why bother. You didnt read the defensive gun research I posted.


Quote:

Of course I am not talking about domestics, where one partner locks the other out, I am sure those types of disputes are more common, but the real scenario you pretend to be concerned about, violent criminals, targeting your property, whilst you are inside.

Don't know what this even means. Do you? I am talking about intruders entering a home, which happens ALL THE TIME. Break ins where they believe the occupants may be out, but are not, or they are too high to know whether the occupants are there or not, or, they want the occupants to be home to disarm security and open safes and show them where valuables are hidden.


Quote:

If you can provide any statistics to show that is not rarer than an honest politician, then I will re-appraise the issue, but I do not believe you can.

As I say, do you have fire insurance? has your home ever burnt down? Does your worplace have sprinklers - has your workplace ever burnt down? Should the sprinklers be removed then. I provided US statistics about defensive gun use. There are no such statistics here - because they pretty much banned all the damn guns.

It seems to me you are saying, that yes you should have guns if there are home invasions, but as they are rare, then you should not. But even if they happen once a year, to one person who dies - shouldnt people be able to stop that from happening? Or is the price of gun control one dead father of a family per year in your scenario? 2? 3? How many regular people should be raped, shot, bashed, killed, in their own homes to justify gun control?


Quote:

How many good aussie muslims would fit into your criteria? How would you feel if the 90% or so of muslims in australia, that are good, honest citizens, with no criminal record, all suddenly were allowed to carry guns?

I know many muslims that own firearms now. They can own guns like anyone else. There are also many muslims who own firearms illegally.

They are separate topics. If muslims meet the criteria for owning firearms, they get firearms. I would not create a tiered state with lesser rights for muslims, although they do for anyone who livesin their states.

I would eliminate muslim immigration however. We are going to have to deal with the ones that are here, ourselves. We were stupid enough to let them in here.


Quote:

Well I don't trust you, and I feel the same about someone like you carrying a gun.

I dont care if you trust me or not. You do not get to make those decisions. I have a clean criminal record, so why shouldnt I be trusted? Just because you don't like my opinions in a free country?


Quote:

The simple fact is that we are all much safer if there are fewer guns, and the fewer the better.

Why - do you think criminals give a s*** what the gun laws are?


Quote:

We just need to facilitate the police to be able to do their jobs, as well as we can, and let them carry the guns, and let them get the bad guys, to suggest that having armed vigilantes to assist them is ridiculous.

I'm not asking armed vigilantes to assist the police. I am saying, that people in their own home should have the right to defend themselves against intruders with firearms, in the same way they do in the US. You keep using hyperbole to get around the very reasonable argument which says, that a man should be able to protect his family from an intruder with a firearm. That's all.

The police do not do their jobs now, they only enforce traffic offences. There is a warzone out in the southwest of Sydney which is effectively ignored. I have seen the incident reports for that region, pages and pages of firearm discharges, shootings, other assaults, burglaries...nothing done about it.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 11^th, 2009 at 4:17pm:

Now if you have any statistics concerning any violent home invasions in Australia, I would love to see them. I can recall about three or four in my lifetime.

It doesn't get in the news. I know someone who has been to gaol for committing more than 3 or 4 violent home invasions.


Quote:

We just need to facilitate the police to be able to do their jobs, as well as we can, and let them carry the guns, and let them get the bad guys, to suggest that we should have armed vigilantes to assist them, is ridiculous.

There are very few police who are going to want to put their lives on the line and engage in offensive shooting for a stranger. They have guns for PROTECTION. That is all. They do not stop crime, they investigate and try and solve it.

Why are you scared of an armed public? Concerned people are out to kill you?

As you are the one seeking to have the law changed to allow you to have a gun, and as it is your argument that you only want one to protect yourself from violent home invasion, then you should be providing the statistical evidence that your fear is a reasonable one, and therefore your wish to have a gun is reasonable.

Now to try and skirt around that by asserting that it is a balanced view to take, even if the probability is millions to one, is just not going to cut it.

It would be more honest to just say you really like guns, and they make you feel powerful, at least that would be more understandable, and certainly more honest.

Maybe you could get a red sportscar too. ;)

Calanen already has gun(s). In another thread he wrote he owns at least a pistol and goes to shooting ranges.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 11^th, 2009 at 5:35pm:

As you are the one seeking to have the law changed to allow you to have a gun, and as it is your argument that you only want one to protect yourself from violent home invasion, then you should be providing the statistical evidence that your fear is a reasonable one, and therefore your wish to have a gun is reasonable.

How often do cops use their guns, or the army for that matter? Should we take their guns too?

How many times do you think you can get beaten to death for it to be too many times? I wish it was 'one in a million' like you say.

First and last time I bother to dispel the dreamland you live in. Walk down to your Local Court if you want to know what is happening, on any day of the week, 9.30am is best and look on the corkboards for the list of offences.

R v Byrne [2005] NSWCCA 141

7 9 September 2003 – aggravated break and enter dwelling house and commit serious indictable offence  (s112(2)).  The circumstance of aggravation was the malicious infliction of actual bodily harm on the victim. The applicant forced open a window at 211 Doncaster Avenue, Kingsford and entered a house. He ransacked the premises and took two rings, bags of coins and a backpack.

8 The home owner returned as the applicant was leaving. The applicant had a pair of scissors in his hand, with which he threatened the owner. There was a brief struggle during which the applicant bit the home owner twice on the upper left arm causing bleeding and bruising. The bag containing the coins was left behind after the struggle, but the two rings were taken. They had a combined value of $2,000.

Marshall v R [2007] NSWCCA 24

12 When he was finished, he shone the torch in her face, placed his hand at the back of her neck and guided her to her daughter’s room. He again told her to sit on the bed and put her hands behind her back. He put items of property in the room, including DVDs, into a suitcase. They then went to the lounge room where the applicant disconnected a DVD player and put it into the case. He then told the victim that they were going to the bank and that he would leave her car in Miller, a nearby suburb. The applicant threatened the victim with a kitchen knife and said, “Don’t make me do what I don’t want to do”.

Banditt v The Queen [2005] HCA 80

The offence of which the appellant was convicted occurred in the early hours of 6 October 2001 at Bellingen, a New South Wales country town. The appellant broke into and entered the two storey dwelling-house where the complainant was sleeping upstairs. The complainant was alone in the house. The appellant committed a serious indictable offence there, namely sexual intercourse with the complainant without her consent and knowing that she was not consenting. The appellant was then aged 27 and the complainant 25.

Regina v S R Kessey [2001] NSWCCA 469

8 At 2.00 am on 5 April 2001, Mr Kessey broke into another home at Bomaderry. The home was in darkness, as you would expect at that hour. Both the front and back doors were locked. Mr Kessey gained entry through a kitchen window, having first removed a flyscreen. He then went from room to room in search of valuables.

9 The premises were occupied by a young woman aged 25 years. She was a naval officer. She lived alone. She did not give evidence on sentence. The matter was dealt with by the tender of statements and a summary of the facts, prepared by the police officer in charge. The respondent also did not give evidence.


Quote:

It would be more honest to just say you really like guns, and they make you feel powerful, at least that would be more understandable, and certainly more honest.

Quote:

Maybe you could get a red sportscar too. ;

I don't own a sports car now, but would be happy to do so. I've owned a corvette before. Unlike you, I dont give a bugger what anyone thinks. I buy and do what I want.

Guns aren't a game. They are a tool. You need to practice regularly at the shooting range to be able to use them. An adult knows how to use a gun, and when to use a gun. Some of the adult population have been brought up to be big kids however. They just stay locked up when not being used and are not thought of otherwise.

You seem to have bought the line sold by feminazis, that having anything good about your life means you are less of a man or who have no penis. What a crock of crap. If you want a sports car buy one. If you want a mansion, buy one. If you want a young girlfriend, get one. Having some dowdy feminazi tell me how to live my life and say I'm not a real man or something or have a small d*** because I want a sports car or a hot blond girlfriend younger than me is not going to happen. I'll live free the way I want. You can keep pleasing the feminazis if you want to.

OK, you can't provide statistics to support your argument, but you cite four cases over a six year period, can you seriously assert that any of those cases would have a better outcome if the victims had owned guns?

The person bumping into the guy with the scissors, would hardly be likely to convince him to just wait here while I go get my gun.

The woman raped, was asleep in her bed, and unless she slept with the gun loaded under her pillow, it would hardly have been of much use to her.

The person threatened with the knife, same thing, unless they are forewarned, how are they going to be in a position to use their guns?

The female naval officer never woke up, so she would not have used a gun in her sleep, so I will give you half a point for trying, but I stand by my original statement, real life is not like hollywood movies, and people do not bang on the window and say, look out, I am coming to get you.

The reality is that most people get no warning, and if they had a gun or not, they would be unlikely to get the chance to use it for self defense against a criminal.

Good luck with the sports car, and sugar daddy dream Calanen, I hope it makes you happy, but I have never known it to for any of my acquaintances.

A nice family, and a real partner you can share stuff with is a far better dream to aspire to, and that is something I would like everybody to be able to enjoy.

Australia has a higher rate of violent crime per capita than the USA.

Why, just now, there have been police sirens going off, PolAir is circling around with the searchlight going and flashing red and blue lights.

Probably won't hear what it was about in the news though.


Quote:

A nice family, and a real partner you can share stuff with is a far better dream to aspire to, and that is something I would like everybody to be able to enjoy.

We don't all desire the same things. We don't all want the same things. You are probably jealous of Calanen because he can afford the sports car and girls in their early twenties might chase after him.

Good thing individuality is embraced by many people, and your insane ideas will never be widely accepted.

Stopping good guys from being able to defend themselves? Wanting to make drugs like ice legal?

People like you should be locked up, you are a danger to society.

Lucky for you though, individuality and freedom of expression are generally encouraged, no matter how strong your apparent dislike of those traits is, and thus you can continue your foolish rants.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 11^th, 2009 at 8:25pm:

OK, you can't provide statistics to support your argument, but you cite four cases over a six year period, can you seriously assert that any of those cases would have a better outcome if the victims had owned guns? The person bumping into the guy with the scissors, would hardly be likely to convince him to just wait here while I go get my gun. The woman raped, was asleep in her bed, and unless she slept with the gun loaded under her pillow, it would hardly have been of much use to her. The person threatened with the knife, same thing, unless they are forewarned, how are they going to be in a position to use their guns? The female naval officer never woke up, so she would not have used a gun in her sleep, so I will give you half a point for trying, but I stand by my original statement, real life is not like hollywood movies, and people do not bang on the window and say, look out, I am coming to get you. The reality is that most people get no warning, and if they had a gun or not, they would be unlikely to get the chance to use it for self defense against a criminal. Good luck with the sports car, and sugar daddy dream Calanen, I hope it makes you happy, but I have never known it to for any of my acquaintances. A nice family, and a real partner you can share stuff with is a far better dream to aspire to, and that is something I would like everybody to be able to enjoy.

Mozzaok,
It is dissapointing that you are so blinkered to what goes on in the real world and I have to agree with virtually everything that Calanen has written.
Calanen is a solicitor and would see more of the seedy side of society in a month than you or indeed most people would see in a lifetime.

I own a bussiness and at one stage was the Chairman of the board of the company that ran our group.
In that capacity I was well aware of the events that happened to various members and I can assure you that armed holdups and assault are common place but as Calanen has pointed out to you, these events are seldom reported unless someone dies.
Permanent disfigurement and disability just don't rate a mention.

I was held up by a guy who wanted me to take him to Alice Springs (2,000KM) at 9=30 one evening.
I am a firearms licence holder but all mine are securely locked up.
Had the law not been changed in the early eighties, the guy would have thought twice about pulling a knife on me because I may have been carrying the gun for which I was licensed.
Wouldn't you if you were he?

The laws in S.A. previously allowed bussinesses, owners and some staff to be armed and society was much more civil then.

Your contention that the role of the police is to protect you is a nonsence and was never the case since Peel founded the modern police force.
The police are reactive only and your safety, and mine, is fully our own responsibility.

Quote:

Good luck with the sports car, and sugar daddy dream Calanen, I hope it makes you happy, but I have never known it to for any of my acquaintances.

I'm not saying that's what I want, I'm saying that IF that's what you or I want, who gives a crap. Remember 'freedom' ? It's just an abstract concept now, not reality anymore. And if that's what I want, who are you to say that your life or you way is any better? Should I live my life, the way you want me to? Screw that.

This forum has only 5000 words per post. I just put a random sample of how often people do break into houses. when you were saying it's one in a million. I could spam up the board with millions of them. They were a random sample, not the only ones I could find.


Quote:

A nice family, and a real partner you can share stuff with is a far better dream to aspire to, and that is something I would like everybody to be able to enjoy.

Spare me the lectures, you dont know what my circumstances are. It's great that you have life all figured out, maybe publish a book to give everyone the advantage of your collective wisdom and to preserve it for future generations.

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/pages/bocsar_onlinequeries

There are all the statistics you'll ever need. Knock yourself out. The statistics are collected in a way that mask the actual crimes though and to put a favourable spin on them. 5579 sexual assaults in a 'dwelling' in 2007. 9299 non-domestic assaults in a dwelling in 2007. 41682 break ins to dwellings.

Sounds like it happens more often than one in a million.

Just about what Northy said, a couple of facts not regularly known about Martin Bryant, that were suppressed by the media at the time. Martin Bryant for any who don't know, was the person who perpetrated the massacre in Tasmania.

He was not a licensed gun owner. He never held a gun license, and purchased his firearms illegally.

The main firearm he used, an AR-15, had been handed in to the Victorian Police during a firearms amnesty and should have been destroyed. Funny how it reappeared in Bryant's hands.

When Martin Bryant took hostages and drove them around, he drove into a petrol station briefly. The station owner could see him with guns, and he got out of the car briefly to mess around doing whatever he was doing (might have been getting petrol). The station owner, a crack shot and competition shooter, went to get his rifle. It was in a safe, he opened the safe, put the gun together, then went and got the ammo from another locked cabinet. Loaded the gun, went outside to stop Bryant, but he was just driving away. More people died, when the station owner could have had a clear shot at Bryant, but for his gun being in pieces and locked up as the law now requires.

You guys just reinforce my beliefs that you live in a fantasy world, where you imagine yourself as western style gunslinger heroes, saving the damsel in distress, and that is just not reality, you really seem unable to separate your fantasies from reality.

With the previous examples you gave, I asked in which of them would the victim owning a gun, have stopped them being victims in the circumstances described, but you chose not to answer, because you know it would not have helped any of them.

You then give the example of martin bryant, and say this petrol station owner could have stopped him.

He saw guns, did he know Bryant was a criminal, at the time?

It seems you are advocating gun owners are so responsible that they should be allowed de facto rights to become, judge, jury, and executioner, as our wandering vigilante army.

The trouble is that it is a self defeating principle, the people who most want to carry guns, by their very nature, are the ones we should least wish to see armed.

Unstable individuals whose feelings of inadequacy, and impotence, are allayed by delusions of power, provided by firepower, is not a scenario I would ever like to see played out on our relatively peaceful streets.

If you really want to aspire to toughness, get a Bruce Lee poster, instead of an AK 47 poster, to drool over.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 12^th, 2009 at 9:57am:

You guys just reinforce my beliefs that you live in a fantasy world, where you imagine yourself as western style gunslinger heroes, saving the damsel in distress, and that is just not reality, you really seem unable to separate your fantasies from reality

You've never had any firearms training or used a firearm or worn a gun in public - and you say I live in a fantasy land? You live in the fantasy land, because you have no idea what you are talking about.


Quote:

With the previous examples you gave, I asked in which of them would the victim owning a gun, have stopped them being victims in the circumstances described, but you chose not to answer, because you know it would not have helped any of them.

You just keep moving the goal posts. I posted 2.5 million examples of defensive gun use in the US. That is, where people ACTUALLY used and prevented crimes with guns. Then that stuff didn't happen here according to you, and u said there were only 1 in a million home invasions. I posted stuff to show that it was far more than 1 in a million, then you want my thesis on how particular people could have used guns. You are just insane. Don't have a gun that's great - you can get beaten to death in your home and be proud that you were sacrificed on the altar of gun control. But other people, like say easel, northy and me, would prefer that we could look after ourselves. Be a pacifist if you like, trust that the guy with the crowbar will patiently wait while you call the cops and wont touch your wife.


Quote:

You then give the example of martin bryant, and say this petrol station owner could have stopped him.

Yes, I do.


Quote:

He saw guns, did he know Bryant was a criminal, at the time?

Distressed hostages and a guy holding a firearm perhaps gave him a clue....unlike you, who is clueless.


Quote:

It seems you are advocating gun owners are so responsible that they should be allowed de facto rights to become, judge, jury, and executioner, as our wandering vigilante army.

Ok so it was better that the hostages died then Bryant got shot by the petrol station owner. You are the one living in fantasy land.


Quote:

The trouble is that it is a self defeating principle, the people who most want to carry guns, by their very nature, are the ones we should least wish to see armed.

Says who? You - just because we disagree with your viewpoint, you get to decide what freedoms we have? Give me a break.


Quote:

Unstable individuals whose feelings of inadequacy, and impotence, are allayed by delusions of power, provided by firepower, is not a scenario I would ever like to see played out on our relatively peaceful streets.

Unstable individuals? How the hell would you know what we are? Anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint is therefore an unstable individual - says you who has no experience with firearms, and no medical expertise on mental health. Its infantile to say that someone must be deranged to not believe as you do.


Quote:

If you really want to aspire to toughness, get a Bruce Lee poster, instead of an AK 47 poster, to drool over.

You keep putting these childish insults in the post. Guns live in the gun cabinet. Owners don't 'drool' over them. They are a tool that is used when they are needed to be used. And trying to challenge our masculinity for owning firearms is just more cheap feminazi rhetoric. You say I'm not tough - whoa - that means a lot on the internet. I could say, yes I am, or no I'm not..it doesnt matter.

The fact is that 38 states in the USA have concealed carry laws, and they work really well. Crime goes down, not up when they are introduced. The cops hang out with the people that get the licenses, see they are good people and grant them the license.

You have just been sold the lie by the government that you are a little kid that cannot be trusted with a weapon, and only the adult enforcers with the state can be entrusted.  

My shooting's pretty good. Better than a lot of the police I've seen shoot at Auburn.

OK Calanen, I appreciate that you claim to do your worst work here, because it is only a forum, and in real life you would be able to think up much better arguments ;), but do you really want to stick with arguments like these?


Quote:

You guys just reinforce my beliefs that you live in a fantasy world, where you imagine yourself as western style gunslinger heroes, saving the damsel in distress, and that is just not reality, you really seem unable to separate your fantasies from reality You've never had any firearms training or used a firearm or worn a gun in public - and you say I live in a fantasy land? You live in the fantasy land, because you have no idea what you are talking about.

So only people who wear guns, or have undergone firearm training should comment?
Sounds reminiscent of only a murderer is allowed to have a position on murder, argument.
To assume that gun lovers are the only people capable of understanding the possible effects of widespread gun ownership on a community is as arrogant as it is feeble.


Quote:

Quote: With the previous examples you gave, I asked in which of them would the victim owning a gun, have stopped them being victims in the circumstances described, but you chose not to answer, because you know it would not have helped any of them. You just keep moving the goal posts. I posted 2.5 million examples of defensive gun use in the US.

No, you are using it as an excuse to not answer what I asked you.
As well, the survey you posted was a phone in survey where gun owners could say how often owning a gun had made them feel safe.
That is purely subjective, and the 2.5 million unrecorded, unreported, "incidents", could range from someone looking funny at them, to a possible life threatening situation, but we can make no assertions about the numbers from a survey like that.

So, still want to avoid the question I asked, or are you game to give it a go now, even if you aren't wearing your gun?

mozza you are an idiot, been smoking some shabs have you?

Your 'arguments' are not.

They are attacks on the character of individuals and collective groups with no basis in fact to substantiate them.

You write as if you have great insight in to the minds of those who desire to be armed for protection, however, the casual observer can discern that you're an idiot and what you are writing gives insight in to your own mind. You are not an expert on people, you are not a mind reader, you are a feeble, pathetic excuse for a human being who is scared of law abiding people being armed.


Quote:

So, still want to avoid the question I asked, or are you game to give it a go now, even if you aren't wearing your gun?

Your questions and statements are the ramblings of a simpleton.


Quote:

You guys just reinforce my beliefs that you live in a fantasy world, where you imagine yourself as western style gunslinger heroes, saving the damsel in distress, and that is just not reality, you really seem unable to separate your fantasies from reality.

You are right that it is not reality. I definitely don't see myself like that. I'm sure Calanen and northy do not either. You seem unable to separate yourself from fantasy and get in to reality.

You're the idiot who wants to legalise ice (or for our American readers, methamphetamine) because you think it will reduce crime. You didn't take in to account the social problems this would cause due to people amped up all the time on a highly addictive drug that causes psychotic symptoms and brain damage as well as making people aggressive and impulsive.

How can anyone lend your thoughts and opinions any kind of credibility? You lack the ability to think more than one step ahead, and clearly, your plans are destined to fail because of your own incompetence.

Do you wash yourself with a rag on a stick?

Amadd wrote on Apr 10^th, 2009 at 8:27pm:

Quote: Every man should have the ability to deal with the threat posed by an intruder. At the moment, no man has that ability, which is a crime of a far greater magnitude. I think that this is the bottom line. If somebody takes away your ability to protect yourself and/or loved ones, then they are taking responsibilty for that protection. If they don't deliver on their "contract", then this should make them liable. Of course being a legal person yourself Calanen, you know that they are not liable because no such contract has been entered into...or has it?

Thumbs up to both these comments.

Would you care to elaborate Locutious, as I have always found your opinions well thought out, and I was hoping for a perspective to come from you, that I had not previously seen.

I do not accept the argument that guns are society's best option, for individual security, as I see them as creating far more problems, than they solve, but if you have arguments to counter that point, I would like to hear them.

Easel, barrel length and the use of various chokes certainly effect the spead of shot from a shotgun. Yes you are basically correct about velocity, this is due to the bullet in a rifle providing a seal allowing the powder to burn off as well as increase the pressure for increased velocity. The wad from a shotgun provides a marginal seal but not as efficient as that in a rifle. Also with a shotgun you have comparatively small powder charges to drive greater weight projectile/s.

You are correct about licensing and registration not stopping hardcore criminals from getting firearms. In fact they usually have access to a range of weaponary that usually only military personal would get to play with. But if licensing and registration stops even a few idiots and morons from getting access, fine. If it stops the spur of the moment purchaser, again fine. I'm not sure about walking around the streets with weapons is sensible but I would be happy to review that stance if the criminal practice of doing this was to become common and wide spread.

If you have a criminal record that involves violence and you are caught with firearms illegally or in a public place than I think it should carry a mandatory 15-20 years. I think it was time we got back to punishing people that do wrong. Take the drug users who are currently violating the law and send them out to work camps etc and put them on intense psychlogical, medical and physical programs to get them clean. They should be working to fund their own healing and should be kept there until they are rehabiliated. It should be a dedicated focused program but a one off program. Second time addict crime recieves full jail time.

Mozza, sorry for the late reply, I have been meaning to get to this for 4 days now. I also hold your opinions on this board in high regard. On most issues I think we have a similar approach to a subject and system of reasoning through arguments. It also happens that our conclusions match more often than not. So I will answer as best I can.

To me the use of the word GUN NUT actually smacks of the same derogatory generalisations that racism does. In fact it always reminds me of the militant feminist slogan many years ago "Every man is a potential rapist". It is simplistically offensive.

The thread started out talking about criminals and guns, so it is hardly surprising that that contributed to the overidding flavour of the topic. I certainly gave an honest position as to my feelings and responses to a home invader. If it never happens, and I hope it does not, then no problem. I have owned guns and live in a world of crime, so without the fantasy, it is something that I have considered. It is as simple as saying I will not allow my family or myself to be a victim or statistic if it is within my power to stop it. I am also of the opinion that 3 o'clock in the morning with an intruder standing between my child's room and me is not the time to conduct a survey. But no I don't fanasize about it, I don't leave my house as an obvious target nor flash the objects of my hard work as a lure.

I have always found it perculiar that in Australia you can hire an armed body guard to protect valuables but not your person. Although I am sure there is a bit of flexibility for the really special people. But yes if you want that personal protection, get yourself a $250K wristwatch and attach yourself to it.

I like guns. I always have. I have hunted in the past and may do so again one day. I very much enjoy it as a sport and a discipline. I consider myself a pretty reasonable marksman and go to the range to shoot targets and clay pidgeons. I know a number of very good shots that have never shot at any living thing as it simply does not interest them. Fine. I've never done anything remotely illegal with my firearms and cannot foresee a need or desire to. Shooting does wonders for my concentration and I enjoy seeing the oldies and handicapped out there at the benches shooting. I also enjoy the fine qualities of beatifully crafted and machined parts that are put together with exquisite mathimatical precision. Like I enjoy well made hand tools, or fishing rods or watches.

At a political level I certainly believe that as long as the State has guns then the citizenry should also. It is an admirable part of the US Bill of Rights and I hope it is defended as long as there are governments and corporations that want it removed. I strongly believe that disarming the citizens favours the tyrants and not the citizens. I consider myself a reasonable enough student of history to say that I have no great confidence that tyranny has been abolished and think that we are entering a new era where real democracy is under profound threat from big business and corporations. I know that you are a deep admirer of the American Thomas Jefferson, so am I. And I honestly believe if he were alive today he would still hold The Right to Keep and Bear Arms as a crucial element of sovereinty belonging to the people or at least their ability to reclaim it should the need arise. Again I would point out that I am not sitting around eagerly awaiting the collapse of society. I would rather a lazy contented existence for me and my children that does not involve harming others nor being a victim.

I have no problem with, hunters, sports shooters, and farmers, owning appropriate weapons, but when I use the term 'Gun Nuts", I refer to people who think they should have the right to carry automatic weapons, in public, just because they have not been convicted of a violent criminal offense, because it just smacks of wild west/spy drama fantasy stuff to me.

As far as personal security goes, I really believe that people would be safer with a good security system in the house.
No kids have accidentally killed their little brother, or sister, with a security system.

I firmly believe that guns in the home increase the chance of violent deaths in the home, the opposite of what many pro gun advocates would like us to believe.

Calanen posted a link where people phoned up, reckoned they saved lives, but if you want a real study, with proper credentials, then here is one from five years ago, in the US.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/160/10/929

Their findings?
Guns in the home, increase gun deaths in the home.
Of course I am not surprised, it is only common sense.

The reality of our lives is that if something ugly and violent happens, even if we own guns, we are unlikely to be prepared to combat it in a way we would anticipate, so I totally dismiss the protection scenario, on a widespread basis, I will agree their would be individual circumstances, where some people who may be specifically targeted by criminals, would want to be excluded from any bans, and they could only be determined on a case by case basis.

I think that owning a gun, is not anyone's right, and I never want to see australia consider it as one.

As far as guns for the population, to keep governments in line, well Homer said it best.

"You want the king of england to come into our home and start pushing us around?"

A King of England once made it mandatory to not only keep arms but to maintain them and be proficient with them.

I believe it is a right for sane citizens of clean record to keep arms that are in line with their levels of training and clearence as monitored by a license/registration system. And while I do not advocate the gun on hip lifestyle for Australia there are certainly places in the world that are still wild enough that I would do that. If I were infatuated with such a life style I would go and live in those places.

I understand your point about home defence and it is a valid one. However I will categorically say with complete confidence that I don't believe my home is made less safe because of the presence of firearms. If we ever live on a rural property I would build a Panic room for my family, as a back up I would make sure my wife was as proficient and deliberate having a gun in her hands as I would be.

Like I said I am happy for such a situation never to present itself, it is my hope and my expectation. To expose my little boy to such a scene of terror and gore is not something that could be considered a wholesome choice. My view of someone who might put me in that position is simply that they are vermin.

Funny, even at a very young age I could not connect the logic that said nations/governments could control thousands/millions of armed men not just for protection against invaders, but also to project their political and economic interests and force abroad. Even justifying vindictive brutality on an opponent that was spent and population unable to carry any meaningful resistance, yet an individual on civie street had to be careful to only use necessary force to subdue an attacker. Woe to you if you could not convince the law that you truely held your life to be in danger if your violence was excessive. And an attacker might even sue you. Good grief.

The thuggery and trivialized violence that is increasing on our streets and leading to murdering people at taxi ranks etc that the offender walks away with "diminished responsibility" and no severe jail time is in my eyes more concerning than lax gun laws.

Nobody would ever argue against a man's desire to keep his family safe, and I fully sympathise with those who believe that they need a gun to do that.

My point is whether or not the actual outcomes, match the expectations?

Is allowing fear to propel us to extremes a proportional, and rational, or even effective, response?

And what level of arming oneself is acceptable?

Some would like a machine gun turret on the roof, others a discrete little 22 in their pocket, mind you that wouldn't have the raw WOW factor of an automatic 45, or the stopping power, but is the aim to take on a neanderthal thug or two, or whether you are expecting bolivia to invade your backyard?

I have said it before, I don't like guns, I don't like having them stuck in my face, I don't like crooks having them, and I don't like fanatics having them, and mostly I don't like the thought of unstable people having them.

The simple mathematical probability is that the more there are, the more likely that more of them will fall into the hands of the very angry, and the very unstable, or the very depressed, and I don't like any of those probabilities.

I still contend that good home security can be organised, without firearms, in the overwhelmingly vast majority of cases, and that is how it should remain.

Quote:

I still contend that good home security can be organised, without firearms, in the overwhelmingly vast majority of cases, and that is how it should remain.

Then you are a fool, and I sincerely hope you never have to find out how much of a fool you really are.

I had a client who the Police alleged robbed a guy and slashed up his face with a knife. Allegedly, of course, .....

Let me tell you I don't scare easy, but I was really glad when I met him in court that he was behind 9 feet of bullet proof glass.

If you meet someone, that may allegedly be prepared to commit a crime like that.. in your home in the middle of the night, tough guy, you better hope that you have something better than an alarm system.

And all of the people like mantra can tell you how he is just a poor petal who has lost his way in life and just wants some money, and doesnt really want to hurt anyone...and that he will leave your house as soon as you ask nicely.....as he cuts you to ribbons and laughs about it to his friends when he's getting his next hit of heroin. You and your family are dead or disfigured for life, but that's a small price to pay to make sure that no one but the government has any weapons.

Calanen wrote on Apr 14^th, 2009 at 10:24pm:

I had a client who the Police alleged robbed a guy and slashed up his face with a knife. Allegedly, of course, ..... Let me tell you I don't scare easy, but I was really glad when I met him in court that he was behind 9 feet of bullet proof glass.

Did you get him off, counsellor?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 14^th, 2009 at 10:37pm:

Calanen wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 10:24pm: I had a client who the Police alleged robbed a guy and slashed up his face with a knife. Allegedly, of course, ..... Let me tell you I don't scare easy, but I was really glad when I met him in court that he was behind 9 feet of bullet proof glass. Did you get him off, counsellor?

Are you posting on Her Majesty Pleasure?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 14^th, 2009 at 10:37pm:

Calanen wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 10:24pm: I had a client who the Police alleged robbed a guy and slashed up his face with a knife. Allegedly, of course, ..... Let me tell you I don't scare easy, but I was really glad when I met him in court that he was behind 9 feet of bullet proof glass. Did you get him off, counsellor?

Stop addressing me fool.

Calanen wrote on Apr 14^th, 2009 at 11:16pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 10:37pm: Calanen wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 10:24pm: I had a client who the Police alleged robbed a guy and slashed up his face with a knife. Allegedly, of course, ..... Let me tell you I don't scare easy, but I was really glad when I met him in court that he was behind 9 feet of bullet proof glass. Did you get him off, counsellor? Stop addressing me fool.

I'm addressing you counsellor.

Did you get him off?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 14^th, 2009 at 11:17pm:

Calanen wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:16pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 10:37pm: Calanen wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 10:24pm: I had a client who the Police alleged robbed a guy and slashed up his face with a knife. Allegedly, of course, ..... Let me tell you I don't scare easy, but I was really glad when I met him in court that he was behind 9 feet of bullet proof glass. Did you get him off, counsellor? Stop addressing me fool. I'm addressing you counsellor. Did you get him off?

Is it the hammer time?  :o

tallowood wrote on Apr 14^th, 2009 at 11:25pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:17pm: Calanen wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:16pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 10:37pm: Calanen wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 10:24pm: I had a client who the Police alleged robbed a guy and slashed up his face with a knife. Allegedly, of course, ..... Let me tell you I don't scare easy, but I was really glad when I met him in court that he was behind 9 feet of bullet proof glass. Did you get him off, counsellor? Stop addressing me fool. I'm addressing you counsellor. Did you get him off? Is it the hammer time?  :o

Whoosh... That's the impact of the point passing over your head.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 14^th, 2009 at 11:32pm:

tallowood wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:25pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:17pm: Calanen wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:16pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 10:37pm: Calanen wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 10:24pm: I had a client who the Police alleged robbed a guy and slashed up his face with a knife. Allegedly, of course, ..... Let me tell you I don't scare easy, but I was really glad when I met him in court that he was behind 9 feet of bullet proof glass. Did you get him off, counsellor? Stop addressing me fool. I'm addressing you counsellor. Did you get him off? Is it the hammer time?  :o Whoosh... That's the impact of the point passing over your head.

Didn't miss you though  :o

Calanen wrote on Apr 14^th, 2009 at 10:24pm:

If you meet someone, that may allegedly be prepared to commit a crime like that.. in your home in the middle of the night, tough guy, you better hope that you have something better than an alarm system. And all of the people like mantra can tell you how he is just a poor petal who has lost his way in life and just wants some money, and doesnt really want to hurt anyone...and that he will leave your house as soon as you ask nicely.....as he cuts you to ribbons and laughs about it to his friends when he's getting his next hit of heroin. You and your family are dead or disfigured for life, but that's a small price to pay to make sure that no one but the government has any weapons.

I have no sympathy or compassion for those who terrorise people.  I would love to have a little hand gun tucked away, but within easy reach for an emergency.

Unfortunately accidents do happen to those who are careless, deranged or inexperienced.  There doesn't seem to be a real answer to the problem of self protection.

tallowood wrote on Apr 14^th, 2009 at 11:39pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:32pm: tallowood wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:25pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:17pm: Calanen wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:16pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 10:37pm: Calanen wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 10:24pm: I had a client who the Police alleged robbed a guy and slashed up his face with a knife. Allegedly, of course, ..... Let me tell you I don't scare easy, but I was really glad when I met him in court that he was behind 9 feet of bullet proof glass. Did you get him off, counsellor? Stop addressing me fool. I'm addressing you counsellor. Did you get him off? Is it the hammer time?  :o Whoosh... That's the impact of the point passing over your head. Didn't miss you though  :o

'Fraid so... You're not going to ford that river in one night... It's going to take time.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 14^th, 2009 at 11:45pm:

tallowood wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:39pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:32pm: tallowood wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:25pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:17pm: Calanen wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:16pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 10:37pm: Calanen wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 10:24pm: I had a client who the Police alleged robbed a guy and slashed up his face with a knife. Allegedly, of course, ..... Let me tell you I don't scare easy, but I was really glad when I met him in court that he was behind 9 feet of bullet proof glass. Did you get him off, counsellor? Stop addressing me fool. I'm addressing you counsellor. Did you get him off? Is it the hammer time?  :o Whoosh... That's the impact of the point passing over your head. Didn't miss you though  :o 'Fraid so... You're not going to ford that river in one night... It's going to take time.

one two, right now, its time,

tallowood wrote on Apr 14^th, 2009 at 11:50pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:45pm: tallowood wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:39pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:32pm: tallowood wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:25pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:17pm: Calanen wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:16pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 10:37pm: Calanen wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 10:24pm: I had a client who the Police alleged robbed a guy and slashed up his face with a knife. Allegedly, of course, ..... Let me tell you I don't scare easy, but I was really glad when I met him in court that he was behind 9 feet of bullet proof glass. Did you get him off, counsellor? Stop addressing me fool. I'm addressing you counsellor. Did you get him off? Is it the hammer time?  :o Whoosh... That's the impact of the point passing over your head. Didn't miss you though  :o 'Fraid so... You're not going to ford that river in one night... It's going to take time. one two, right now, its time,

I bet the counsellor got the point.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 14^th, 2009 at 11:55pm:

tallowood wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:50pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:45pm: tallowood wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:39pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:32pm: tallowood wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:25pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:17pm: Calanen wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:16pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 10:37pm: Calanen wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 10:24pm: I had a client who the Police alleged robbed a guy and slashed up his face with a knife. Allegedly, of course, ..... Let me tell you I don't scare easy, but I was really glad when I met him in court that he was behind 9 feet of bullet proof glass. Did you get him off, counsellor? Stop addressing me fool. I'm addressing you counsellor. Did you get him off? Is it the hammer time?  :o Whoosh... That's the impact of the point passing over your head. Didn't miss you though  :o 'Fraid so... You're not going to ford that river in one night... It's going to take time. one two, right now, its time, I bet the counsellor got the point.

From your head? :o

tallowood wrote on Apr 14^th, 2009 at 11:57pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:55pm: tallowood wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:50pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:45pm: tallowood wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:39pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:32pm: tallowood wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:25pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:17pm: Calanen wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:16pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 10:37pm: Calanen wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 10:24pm: I had a client who the Police alleged robbed a guy and slashed up his face with a knife. Allegedly, of course, ..... Let me tell you I don't scare easy, but I was really glad when I met him in court that he was behind 9 feet of bullet proof glass. Did you get him off, counsellor? Stop addressing me fool. I'm addressing you counsellor. Did you get him off? Is it the hammer time?  :o Whoosh... That's the impact of the point passing over your head. Didn't miss you though  :o 'Fraid so... You're not going to ford that river in one night... It's going to take time. one two, right now, its time, I bet the counsellor got the point. From your head? :o

From his sound comrehension of the English language... a sine qua non in Australia for his profession, I'd bet.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 15^th, 2009 at 12:00am:

tallowood wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:57pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:55pm: tallowood wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:50pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:45pm: tallowood wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:39pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:32pm: tallowood wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:25pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:17pm: Calanen wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:16pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 10:37pm: Calanen wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 10:24pm: I had a client who the Police alleged robbed a guy and slashed up his face with a knife. Allegedly, of course, ..... Let me tell you I don't scare easy, but I was really glad when I met him in court that he was behind 9 feet of bullet proof glass. Did you get him off, counsellor? Stop addressing me fool. I'm addressing you counsellor. Did you get him off? Is it the hammer time?  :o Whoosh... That's the impact of the point passing over your head. Didn't miss you though  :o 'Fraid so... You're not going to ford that river in one night... It's going to take time. one two, right now, its time, I bet the counsellor got the point. From your head? :o From his sound comrehension of the English language... a sine qua non in Australia for his profession, I'd bet.

Oiche mhaith agus codladh samh  :-*

tallowood wrote on Apr 15^th, 2009 at 12:04am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 15th, 2009 at 12:00am: tallowood wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:57pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:55pm: tallowood wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:50pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:45pm: tallowood wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:39pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:32pm: tallowood wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:25pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:17pm: Calanen wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:16pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 10:37pm: Calanen wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 10:24pm: I had a client who the Police alleged robbed a guy and slashed up his face with a knife. Allegedly, of course, ..... Let me tell you I don't scare easy, but I was really glad when I met him in court that he was behind 9 feet of bullet proof glass. Did you get him off, counsellor? Stop addressing me fool. I'm addressing you counsellor. Did you get him off? Is it the hammer time?  :o Whoosh... That's the impact of the point passing over your head. Didn't miss you though  :o 'Fraid so... You're not going to ford that river in one night... It's going to take time. one two, right now, its time, I bet the counsellor got the point. From your head? :o From his sound comrehension of the English language... a sine qua non in Australia for his profession, I'd bet. Oiche mhaith agus codladh samh  :-*

早抖

Well we now know that tallo can speak gibberish in more than one language, but fails to find the meaning in any.

If they combine forces they can successfully avoid ever giving a sensible answer.

I did see Tallo make a sensible point once, but it got lost amongst his gibberish, but I give him points for at least maintaining a sense of humour about things, that is a good quality to have, the ones who cannot even muster that are a real worry.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 15^th, 2009 at 12:23am:

but I give him points for at least maintaining a sense of humour about things, that is a good quality to have, the ones who cannot even muster that are a real worry.

hear hear. He's a good sport.

Three cheers for Grasshopper.  ;D

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 15^th, 2009 at 12:27am:

mozzaok wrote on Apr 15th, 2009 at 12:23am: but I give him points for at least maintaining a sense of humour about things, that is a good quality to have, the ones who cannot even muster that are a real worry. hear hear. He's a good sport. Three cheers for Grasshopper.  ;D

dickie, of course I am good sport, I know that. I also know that mozza is overweighted, close to heart attack, aggressive, abusive, arrogant, self admitted smartarse with knickers uptied on his head, which is one of the reasons why he is so red in his face and  and inability to use his brain.  :)

Security systems are far more expensive and harder to maintain than a gun. Which puts them out of reach of people who could otherwise perhaps budget for a $200 dollar gun and $20 on ammunition, as well as a simple cleaning kit for maybe $15.

Mozzaok is a stupid fat bugger.

Swimming pools are far more dangerous to family members than a firearm. As are heaters and electric blankets.

We don't ban them.

Mozzaok is clueless and wants to legalise ice.

Mozzaok is a smacking idiot.

Hi weasel, you are not well, take your medication.

I'm not weasel. I am perfectly fine. No medication for me.

Do you ever get that sinking feeling that people are out looking for you and are going to torture you?

Mr S D Cooper.  

While I have no technical capacity in this Thread, I suppose that does not preclude me from asking that you desist in making Posts of that kind.  Whatever you may be thinking, it does your cause here, whatever that may be, no good at all.

Please comply with that request.

I'm not a member of this forum. I just post here.

Have you heard of Ndranghetta?

superdupercooper wrote on Apr 15^th, 2009 at 8:53pm:

I'm not weasel. I am perfectly fine. No medication for me. Do you ever get that sinking feeling that people are out looking for you and are going to torture you?

That fuggin bird's back... now how did she do that?

It is OK Helian, he will have time to reflect on if he wishes to behave appropriately, threats, even veiled ones, are considered inappropriate here.