"We need fewer guns in society, not more."
     - John Howard [on the 7.30 report tonight]


John Howard, in response to Senator Leyonhjelm's expressed view that law abiding citizens don't need to be rendered totally defenceless, by Australian governments.


QUESTIONS;
#1,
If that sentiment, expressed by John Howard is true, then when are state and commonwealth governments going to disarm all police forces and agencies throughout Australia ?

#2,
If that sentiment, expressed by John Howard is true, AND, if law abiding citizens do not need to have any means to defend themselves [from armed criminals], then why don't the police forces throughout Australia, disarm themselves, and simply use harsh language whenever police officers confront armed criminals ?



Google;
Senator Leyonhjelm's call on guns

Google;
"John Howard", on Senator Leyonhjelm's call on guns



COMMENT BY Yadda;
Of course having firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens has merit, in confronting and preventing criminal violence in our society.







Quote:

There are no good guns.  There are no bad guns. A gun in the hands of a bad man is a bad thing. A gun in the hands of a good man isn't a threat to anyone .......... except a bad guy!

former sig line of, DreamRyderX

I hate to say that John Howard is right.

Yadda wrote on Dec 18^th, 2014 at 10:07pm:

COMMENT BY Yadda; Of course having firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens has merit, in confronting and preventing criminal violence in our society. Quote: There are no good guns.  There are no bad guns. A gun in the hands of a bad man is a bad thing. A gun in the hands of a good man isn't a threat to anyone .......... except a bad guy! former sig line of, DreamRyderX

The sentiment expressed in that quote [above], makes perfect sense to me.


QUESTION;
Relating to the lawful right to possess a firearm [that could be extended to individuals], what 'circumstances' would describe the character and nature of 'a good man' OR, of a 'law abiding citizen' ?



Well i have a few simple [and logical] suggestions;

Personally, i believe that everyone over the age of say, 25 years old, who has never had a drink driving conviction, and, who has never had an illicit drug use conviction, and, who has not had a criminal conviction in the last 20 years, should be permitted to own, and keep a firearm in their own home, for the protection of themselves, and their property.


EXPLANATION;
Over 25 years old - goes to mental maturity and stability.

Never having had a drink driving conviction - goes to character and recognition [by an individual] of the importance of personal responsibility.

Never having had a conviction for the use of illicit [i.e. psychotropic] drugs - goes to  mental stability and character and recognition [by an individual] of the importance of personal responsibility.

No criminal conviction in the last 20 years - goes to character and recognition [by an individual] of the importance of personal responsibility.

I would also disallow the possession of a firearm to anyone who is under 'medical care' for any 'mental health' issue, because he/she may be taking mind altering 'medication' [i.e. psychotropic drugs].




COMMENT;
I would wager that under such rules [above], some current police officers would not qualify for possession and use firearms!

A few more thoughts to ponder, relating to this contentious issue.....


Yadda said....

Quote:

Criminals for Gun Control http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1239003896/6#6 [quote] 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?

"rifle discipline" = = firearm safety.

e.g.
At rifle/shooting ranges, anywhere in Australia, a person is ALWAYS taught, that if someone hands YOU a firearm, YOU should always determine 'the condition' of THAT firearm - BEFORE YOU DO ANOTHER THING.

i.e.
If someone hands YOU a firearm, YOU should always OPEN THE BOLT/CHAMBER SLIGHTLY, to visually determine ['the condition'] if there is a round [a 'bullet'] in the chamber of THAT firearm - BEFORE YOU DO ANOTHER THING.

And, YOU ALSO LEARN, that if you do not know how to open the bolt/chamber of that firearm [to determine if the chamber is loaded with a round, or not] - THEN YOU SHOULD NOT BE HANDLING THAT FIREARM !!!!!!


[/quote]iYadda said....

Quote:

MORE ON THE POLITICS OF FIREARM OWNERSHIP.... I highly recommend to you, these two simple YOUTUBE presentations which LOGICALLY explores both sides of the gun control issue - and LOGICALLY explores the motives of [those] politicians who want to render law abiding CITIZENS 'harmless' - by 'making society safer', by disarming the law abiding CITIZENS. And these YT's explain why we should all be concerned about, where base political power comes from, and who has the right to wield that base political power. YOUTUBE Gun Control http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RoMqB0VU4U The 2nd presentation here, explores how base political power has been coveted, and slyly achieved, by some. In 6 parts, 0-5 1st part, YOUTUBE -DVD Version: INTRO - Individualism vs Collectivism http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMYicq_SN1E

Yadda said....
[quote]

Being a cynic, i suspect that the atrocity committed by Martin Bryant was a 'happy circumstance' for some in our community, social 'progressives' who were waiting for a good excuse to make firearm ownership much more difficult, and enact legislation to effectively disarm many/most Australian citizens.

After 1996, i lost two 12g's and a 22 semi-auto.




Yadda wrote on Sep 10^th, 2011 at 2:46pm:

p.s. Personally, i believe that everyone over the age of say, 25 years old, who has never had a drink driving, or [illicit] drug use conviction, or, a criminal conviction [in the last 20 years], should be permitted to own, and keep a firearm in their own home, for the protection of themselves, and their property. Which is just reflecting good Australian values.     ;) Google; Every Man Should Have A Rifle, Henry Lawson

Dnarever wrote on Dec 18^th, 2014 at 10:14pm:

I hate to say that John Howard is right.

Two points;

#1,
I don't believe you.


#2,
Would you care to explain why you believe that John Howard is right ?

And if you are certain that John Howard is right, then i repeat my OPEN QUESTION;
Why don't the police forces throughout Australia, disarm themselves, and simply use harsh language whenever police officers confront armed criminals ?





COMMENT BY Yadda;
Creating a circumstance, in a modern society, where only criminals and the servants of a political executive have possession of firearms is insane, imo.

But hey!   ....what's new ?         :D





Quote:

A simple definition of SANITY/INSANITY. Typically, an unrestrained sane person will 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.

'Normal' criminal behaviour - in mankind
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1293669294/0#0





Governments are elected to formulate legislation in parliament which will best serve the interests of the citizens who have elected them.

QUESTION;
Are our political leaders acting in the best interests of their citizens ?

n.b.
Our political leaders are [in fact!] the SERVANTS of the citizens.
WE [THE CITIZENS], PAY THEIR WAGES!



QUESTION;
Is it in the best interests of the citizens of Australia, for the government of Australia, to bring about the circumstances, where only criminals and the servants of the political executive have possession of firearms ?








"A bureaucrat, is said to oppose all change [which govern his lawful actions]. Except when change will increases his own power."
  - unknown

Yadda wrote on Dec 18^th, 2014 at 10:07pm:

"We need fewer guns in society, not more."      - John Howard [on the 7.30 report tonight]

Well said, John.

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 7:22am:

Yadda wrote on Dec 18th, 2014 at 10:07pm: "We need fewer guns in society, not more."      - John Howard [on the 7.30 report tonight] Well said, John.

Our legal registered firearm numbers are  higher than what they were before the gun buyback, so much for the buy back reducing numbers.

Australia has massively increased firearm ownership while firearm crime has decreased, can any anti gun bigot explain how more guns equals less crime in Australia?

More guns in Australia has resulted in less gun crime,Howard is wrong-
http://gameconnsw.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/McPhedran_More_Guns_More_or_Less_Crime.pdf

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 10:43am:

Howard is wrong-

No, he's dead right.

"We need fewer guns in society, not more."

[smiley=beer.gif]

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 11:49am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 10:43am: Howard is wrong- No, he's dead right. "We need fewer guns in society, not more."

The anti gun bigots claim a reduction in firearm numbers was responsible for our decrease in gun crime.

Our legal firearm numbers have increased to above the levels before Pt Arthur while at the exact same time firearm crime has decreased.

In Australia more legal guns have actually resulted in less firearm crime.

Peccaheads cannot handle the truth. 8-)

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 12:07pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:49am: Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 10:43am: Howard is wrong- No, he's dead right. "We need fewer guns in society, not more." The anti gun bigots claim a reduction in firearm numbers was responsible for our decrease in gun crime.

I don't know who those guys are, but I certainly didn't say that.

What I did say was "Well said, John".

And, "he's dead right": "We need fewer guns in society, not more."

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 12:24pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 12:07pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:49am: Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 10:43am: Howard is wrong- No, he's dead right. "We need fewer guns in society, not more." The anti gun bigots claim a reduction in firearm numbers was responsible for our decrease in gun crime. I don't know who those guys are, but I certainly didn't say that. What I did say was "Well said, John". And, "he's dead right": "We need fewer guns in society, not more."

With Australia increasing the legal numbers of firearms has happened at the exact same time firearm crime has decreased, we have the most guns we have ever had while at the exact same time having our lowest firearm crime rates.

Detective Chief Supt Finch said at the recent senate inquiry into gun violence law abiding firearm owners are not the problem, link to transcripts in gun laws thread.

Different types of guns.  Different licensing requirements.  Must now show a need. More training for gun owners as well.  This seems to have made sure that no gun massacres have taken place.   

Gun proliferation without a "need" to be shown and no requirement for training of gun owners/users doesn't seem to have worked out too well in the USA, now has it?  ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D

|dev|null wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 2:29pm:

Different types of guns.  Different licensing requirements.  Must now show a need. More training for gun owners as well.  This seems to have made sure that no gun massacres have taken place.    Gun proliferation without a "need" to be shown and no requirement for training of gun owners/users doesn't seem to have worked out too well in the USA, now has it?

Did you know:

"Need" has nothing to do with an American Citizens right to keep & bear arms.

The U.S. Government, by law, is not permitted to infringe upon an American Citizens right to keep & bear arms.

It's estimated that there are in excess of 300 million firearms in America, but the real number will never be known because firearm registration is virtually non-existent.

There are well in excess of 100 million firearms owners in America registered in gun clubs.

Over 98+% of all legal firearms owned by law abiding American Citizens are never used in the commission of a crime?

I could go on, but I think you need to start ignoring the political rants of the America's Anti-gun Left.

30,000  people die from gun shot wounds every year in the USA.

We don't want that here.

Bobby. wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 8:29pm:

30,000  people die from gun shot wounds every year in the USA. We don't want that here.

That's totally incorrect.

If your going to quote a statistic, please make sure it's correct.

* It's about 12,000+ per year on recent average (12,700+ high in 2006), 6,000+ are suicides. The total number also includes criminal upon criminal homicide, & criminals shot in a commission of a crime by law enforcement.

That's compared to 30,000+ killed in motor vehicle accidents each year.

The overwhelming majority of those killed by firearms were killed by criminals in the commission of a crime (suicide is a crime) while using an illegal firearm.

I'll provide you with the actual statistics if you wish. http://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/cheerskj4.gif


* Edit:Corrections

Panther wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 8:36pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:29pm: 30,000  people die from gun shot wounds every year in the USA. We don't want that here. That's totally incorrect. If your going to quote a statistic, please make sure it's correct. It's about 10,000 per year on recent average (11,000 high in 2011), which includes criminal upon criminal homicide, criminals shot in a commission of a crime by law enforcement, & 60+% are suicides. That's compared to 30,000+ killed in motor vehicle accidents each year. The overwhelming majority of those killed by firearms were killed by criminals in the commission of a crime (suicide is a crime) while using an illegal firearm. I'll provide you with the actual statistics if you wish. http://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/cheerskj4.gif

Go on -  it's approximately 30,000 regardless of the reason.

Bobby. wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 8:58pm:

Panther wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:36pm: Bobby. wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:29pm: 30,000  people die from gun shot wounds every year in the USA. We don't want that here. That's totally incorrect. If your going to quote a statistic, please make sure it's correct. It's about 10,000 per year on recent average (11,000 high in 2011), which includes criminal upon criminal homicide, criminals shot in a commission of a crime by law enforcement, & 60+% are suicides. That's compared to 30,000+ killed in motor vehicle accidents each year. The overwhelming majority of those killed by firearms were killed by criminals in the commission of a crime (suicide is a crime) while using an illegal firearm. I'll provide you with the actual statistics if you wish. http://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/cheerskj4.gif Go on -  it's approximately 30,000 regardless of the reason.

It's actually around 10,000 if you don't include suicides, 52% of firearm homicides are done by a demographic that is 12% of the population.

This guy decided to end his life on his own terms,suicide is a separate issue to gun crime.
What are your thoughts on this guy deciding to end his own life Bobby, is he guilty of any crime?
www.duckworksmagazine.com/09/reports/bolger/index.htm

It's  30,000 regardless of the reason.

I await your apology.

Bobby. wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 5:21am:

It's  30,000 regardless of the reason. I await your apology.

Only GUN HOMICIDES will be considered valid & related to this Topic.
Other Homicides are irrelevant, & not related to the OP.


http://i.imgur.com/mhioMep.png



Quote:

Gun homicides (or more specifically, the rate of gun homicides per 100,000 residents) declined by 49 percent between their peak in 1993 and 2010, a period of 17 years. We double-checked the Pew Research Center's 2013 Report calculations of the CDC figures and found that they were correct. Between 1993 and 2010, the gun homicide rate fell from 7.02 per 100,000 to 3.59 per 100,000, or a decline of precisely 49 percent.

Minor Corrections were made to my earlier post, where it was found that the numbers were slightly off.


Consider yourself forgiven.  http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-basic/smile.gif    http://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/friends01.gif

Forgiven

namaste



http://usconservatives.about.com/od/capitalpunishment/a/Putting-Gun-Death-Statistics-In-Perspective.htm



Quote:

There are roughly 32,000 gun deaths per year in the United States. Of those, around 60% are suicides. About 3% are accidental deaths (between 700-800 deaths). About 34% of deaths (just over 11,000 in both 2010 and 2011) make up the remainder of gun deaths and are classified as homicides. Sometimes the 32,000 and 11,000 figures are used interchangeably by gun control advocates. Clearly, the 32,000 figure is a far more dramatic number and it is often used for impact by anti-gun activists. These numbers are also regularly compared to other countries' gun statistics. But is it a fair comparison? Here, we will examine some of the most common gun control arguments used and put those figures into perspective.

Yadda wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 5:14am:

Yadda wrote on Dec 18th, 2014 at 10:07pm: COMMENT BY Yadda; Of course having firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens has merit, in confronting and preventing criminal violence in our society. Quote: There are no good guns.  There are no bad guns. A gun in the hands of a bad man is a bad thing. A gun in the hands of a good man isn't a threat to anyone .......... except a bad guy! former sig line of, DreamRyderX The sentiment expressed in that quote [above], makes perfect sense to me. QUESTION; Relating to the lawful right to possess a firearm [that could be extended to individuals], what 'circumstances' would describe the character and nature of 'a good man' OR, of a 'law abiding citizen' ? Well i have a few simple [and logical] suggestions; Personally, i believe that everyone over the age of say, 25 years old, who has never had a drink driving conviction, and, who has never had an illicit drug use conviction, and, who has not had a criminal conviction in the last 20 years, should be permitted to own, and keep a firearm in their own home, for the protection of themselves, and their property. EXPLANATION; Over 25 years old - goes to mental maturity and stability. Never having had a drink driving conviction - goes to character and recognition [by an individual] of the importance of personal responsibility. Never having had a conviction for the use of illicit [i.e. psychotropic] drugs - goes to  mental stability and character and recognition [by an individual] of the importance of personal responsibility. No criminal conviction in the last 20 years - goes to character and recognition [by an individual] of the importance of personal responsibility. I would also disallow the possession of a firearm to anyone who is under 'medical care' for any 'mental health' issue, because he/she may be taking mind altering 'medication' [i.e. psychotropic drugs]. COMMENT; I would wager that under such rules [above], some current police officers would not qualify for possession and use firearms!

Yep, probably a safe bet. Another safe bet though would be wagering that plenty of "baddies" would qualify under those conditions...

Which would be a tad problematic.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 9:05pm:

What are your thoughts on this guy deciding to end his own life Bobby, is he guilty of any crime? www.duckworksmagazine.com/09/reports/bolger/index.htm

Would this guys suicide have been more acceptable if he used a rope or jumped from a height instead of using a gun?

A most interesting topic. Why is it that when some members of a community wish to indulge in a legal and enjoyable activity, someone is against it for no logical reason, bias or just has no idea? Firearms are not the problem, it's the Nay Sayers&  numnuts who believe firearms are a danger to the public who cannot comprehend that if there are fewer firearms in the community, crime rate rises. You better believe it. If it's to hard for you to find supporting evidence, try harder.  ::)

nasus wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 3:02pm:

A most interesting topic. Why is it that when some members of a community wish to indulge in a legal and enjoyable activity, someone is against it for no logical reason, bias or just has no idea? Firearms are not the problem, it's the Nay Sayers&  numnuts who believe firearms are a danger to the public who cannot comprehend that if there are fewer firearms in the community, crime rate rises. You better believe it. If it's to hard for you to find supporting evidence, try harder.  ::)

Absolutely, a proven fact.

Seek, & ye shall find, & find a lot!     http://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/guns4.gif

Panther wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 6:10am:

Bobby. wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 5:21am: It's  30,000 regardless of the reason. I await your apology. Quote: Only GUN HOMICIDES will be considered valid & related to this Topic. Other Homicides are irrelevant, & not related to the OP. http://i.imgur.com/mhioMep.png [quote]Gun homicides (or more specifically, the rate of gun homicides per 100,000 residents) declined by 49 percent between their peak in 1993 and 2010, a period of 17 years. We double-checked the Pew Research Center's 2013 Report calculations of the CDC figures and found that they were correct. Between 1993 and 2010, the gun homicide rate fell from 7.02 per 100,000 to 3.59 per 100,000, or a decline of precisely 49 percent.

[/quote]


Quote:

Only GUN HOMICIDES will be considered valid & related to

Untrue. Any gun related death is consistent with this topic. Gun related accidents do not happen without a gun. Undetermined gun related death is almost guaranteed to fall within a category which should be counted.

100% of gun related death relies on the presence of a gun.

nasus wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 3:02pm:

A most interesting topic. Why is it that when some members of a community wish to indulge in a legal and enjoyable activity, someone is against it for no logical reason, bias or just has no idea? Firearms are not the problem, it's the Nay Sayers&  numnuts who believe firearms are a danger to the public who cannot comprehend that if there are fewer firearms in the community, crime rate rises. You better believe it. If it's to hard for you to find supporting evidence, try harder.  ::)

numnuts who believe firearms are a danger to the public


Sorry but I disagree, A figure around 180 people in Australia die as a result of gun shot each year, I suspect that this constitutes a danger.

If someone wants to write that "A figure around 180 people in Australia die as a result of gun shot each year, I suspect that this constitutes a danger." That person should indicate the source of the number. That person should also write that the greatest percentage were suicide. The source of my figures is Age printed, " Australian Institute of Criminology". I use this as the figures I want to quote are to lengthy and bulky.
Hence if firearms are a danger, which in greatly disputed, what about deaths by mothers, using a knife, all other weapons other than firearms. Possibly the greatest number of deaths in Australia today is at the hands of Hospital staff after admission for surgery. The last time I saw the figures it was around 5000 per year. Not a good look I will locate my figures for deaths after admission to hospital and post later.


By Shane Wright
January 3, 2004
Melbourne Age:

Guns killed more than 5000 people in Australia in the past decade. Nine out of 10 of the victims were male and most of them killed themselves.

The number of deaths caused by firearms dropped almost 50 per cent between 1991 and 2001, with the biggest yearly fall in deaths coming after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.

A report by the Australian Institute of Criminology released yesterday found that the number of deaths caused by guns each year dropped to 333 in 2001 from 629 in 1991.

The biggest single form of firearm death was suicide, accounting for 3930 fatalities out of a total of 5083 studied. The number fell from 505 in 1991 to 261 in 2001.

Men were the victims of 4586 firearm deaths, women were victims of 497 - 261 of which were recorded as homicide.

Homicides dropped to 47 in 2001 from 84 in 1991, accidental deaths dropped to 18 from 29, while other forms of firearm deaths slipped to seven from 11.

The biggest drop in deaths followed Port Arthur, when Martin Bryant murdered 35 people with a military-style weapon.

After the massacre, tough gun laws were enacted across Australia, specifically targeting military-style weapons, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of weapons being destroyed.

In 1996, 521 people died from gun-inflicted wounds, while in 1997 this dropped to 437.

State and federal governments agreed in late 2002 on new laws aimed at restricting access to handguns. Last July import controls were increased.

Hunting rifles consistently accounted for the largest number of deaths, followed by shotguns, while the use of handguns has increased. The number of times a hunting rifle was implicated in a death dropped to 76 in 2001 from 282 in 1991. Shotgun deaths dropped from 133 to 54 but handgun deaths increased from 29 in 1991 to 49 in 2001.

This is the place it belongs, posted in wrong section, my bad.
Source: Sydney Morning Herald.
HOSPITAL errors claim the lives of 4550 Australians a year, equivalent to the death toll from 13 jumbo jets crashing and killing all on board, says a report to the Government which urges sweeping reforms of the health system.

And savings of $1 billion a year could be made if problems including hospital-borne infections, medication mix-ups, drug side effects and patient falls were only halved.

Such "adverse events" are estimated to have affected about 16 per cent of people admitted.

The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, today will release the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission report which warns that the present system is "unlikely to be sustainable without reform".


hence this is current, a staggering number and all as a result of what, not a firearm in sight, or knife, possibly a pill. Now what. BAN Hospitals. Yea. Or Doctors!

nasus wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 9:08am:

This is the place it belongs, posted in wrong section, my bad. Source: Sydney Morning Herald. HOSPITAL errors claim the lives of 4550 Australians a year, equivalent to the death toll from 13 jumbo jets crashing and killing all on board, says a report to the Government which urges sweeping reforms of the health system. And savings of $1 billion a year could be made if problems including hospital-borne infections, medication mix-ups, drug side effects and patient falls were only halved. Such "adverse events" are estimated to have affected about 16 per cent of people admitted. The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, today will release the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission report which warns that the present system is "unlikely to be sustainable without reform". hence this is current, a staggering number and all as a result of what, not a firearm in sight, or knife, possibly a pill. Now what. BAN Hospitals. Yea. Or Doctors!

Hospitals and doctors weren't originally designed to kill.

/thread

Dnarever wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 6:10am:

nasus wrote on Jan 14th, 2015 at 3:02pm: A most interesting topic. Why is it that when some members of a community wish to indulge in a legal and enjoyable activity, someone is against it for no logical reason, bias or just has no idea? Firearms are not the problem, it's the Nay Sayers&  numnuts who believe firearms are a danger to the public who cannot comprehend that if there are fewer firearms in the community, crime rate rises. You better believe it. If it's to hard for you to find supporting evidence, try harder.  ::) Sorry but I disagree, A figure around 180 people in Australia die as a result of gun shot each year, I suspect that this constitutes a danger.

If that's a fact, I wonder how you feel about how many in Australia die as a result of falls, of motorcycle accidents, of drowning?

How many Australians die of accidents related to alcohol, die of alcohol poisoning, die of homicides committed by those under the influence of alcohol, die of diseases related to the use of alcohol.

When we talk about homicide, how many of your 180 precious lives are forfeit because they are shot by the police while in commission of a crime, or shot in criminals vs. criminal arguments?

How many of those 180 you tout die of self-inflicted gunshot wounds, yes from the cowards way out ..... suicide?

Now, of all those firearm deaths, you never mentioned how many Australians who died, died from wounds inflicted by law abiding citizens, using legal firearms to protect themselves, their families, loved-ones, their mates?

Now how may died from illegal firearms ...... mostly at the hands of a lawless criminal?



Oh, & last but not least, how many Australians die from knives, rocks, pipes, bats (as in baseball or cricket), hammers, screwdrivers, glass bottles?


And don't ever forget about Bare Hands/Fists  ---  the most deadly weapons on earth.



Now that we have touched the tip of the proverbial iceberg, is the danger of firearms so great that we as a democratic society, do we refuse to allow law abiding, clear thinking, trained, & honest citizens to protect themselves with legal firearms, protect themselves when their lives are threatened, or when their family & mates face mortal danger to defend them?

Why?

Have they no right to protect themselves?

Are their lives less important than your precious 180?


Are ya thinkin' yet?

Or are you so blinded by the baseless rhetoric from the left that firearms are all so, so bad & evil, that your mind can only function in one way ....... as they trained you?   ::)

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 9:26am:

.......Hospitals and doctors weren't originally designed to kill.

Hospitals and doctors weren't originally designed to kill, but they do, don't they?

Malpractice is at an all time high, or are you going to deny that?

And firearms were only designed to kill.

Good.....

Something, thank God, that works!!!

But, unlike you,  they don't discriminate, they kill bad guys too, & in that way they save quite a few lives.

Probably more than you're willing to admit.


But again, you won't admit that either, will you?

Panther wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 12:01pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 15th, 2015 at 9:26am: .......Hospitals and doctors weren't originally designed to kill. Hospitals and doctors weren't originally designed to kill, but they do, don't they?  Yes. Malpractice is at an all time high, or are you going to deny that? I'll take your word for it. And firearms were only designed to kill. Yes. Good..... No, it's bad. Something, thank God, that works!!! Doctors and hospitals work too, or are you suggesting that they don't save any lives? But, unlike you,  they don't discriminate, they kill bad guys too, & in that way they save quite a few lives. True. Probably more than you're willing to admit. I'll admit to whatever the actual figure is. Do they save more than they take? But again, you won't admit that either, will you?  Yes, I would.

"Only gun homicides are relevant to the OP"

I beg to differ, the whole point of the legal use of a means of self defence whether it be lethal or non-lethal is to reduce all violent crime as conceal carry permits have done in the oh so crazy US....70% in what was it 13 years or so?

Howard cherry picks one statistic...gun homicides which makes sense in a narrow simplistic view of the issue ignoring the whole point of self defence.

Though they aren't asking much....self defence is legal however one can already own a firearm and use it in self defence the issue is they'll be treated as a criminal. Surely our courts can manage to rule whether someonr fires a firearm in self defence or not the same way they do now with our fists....only lethal and non-lethal means are pretty illegal atm and that needs to change in order to be consistent with the idea of a persons right to self defence.

It's Australia, not downtown Detroit.

We have less than 400 homicides a year.

I certainly don't feel unsafe walking the streets at nights.

You can defend yourself with a weapon. That in itself is not illegal.

Life_goes_on wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 4:08pm:

It's Australia, not downtown Detroit. We have less than 400 homicides a year. I certainly don't feel unsafe walking the streets at nights. You can defend yourself with a weapon. That in itself is not illegal.

You may feel safe that doesn't mean we don't have violent crime. What weapons are legal in self-defence? Even sticks aren't.....if you use a firearm that's illegal. If you buy pepper spray/a taser that's illegal...this is Australia remember.

Vuk11 wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 5:57pm:

Life_goes_on wrote on Jan 15th, 2015 at 4:08pm: It's Australia, not downtown Detroit. We have less than 400 homicides a year. I certainly don't feel unsafe walking the streets at nights. You can defend yourself with a weapon. That in itself is not illegal. You may feel safe that doesn't mean we don't have violent crime. What weapons are legal in self-defence? Even sticks aren't.....if you use a firearm that's illegal. If you buy pepper spray/a taser that's illegal...this is Australia remember.

You can use whatever you have at hand... pool cue, cricket bat, kitchen knife etc.... if you have a firearm and they come at you with a firearm then that's fine too.

You'll be interviewed by the cops who will attempt to work out if the story you tell is the truth and that you didn't use unnecessary force - or chase the culprit down once the danger was gone etc

If you use an illegal weapon it won't affect whether or not you get charged for assault etc - all it will do is probably get you an "illegal possession of...." charge.

If all is ok then you'll hear nothing more about it - otherwise, get lawyered up and you'll have a chance to explain your case in court.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 6:10am:

Sorry but I disagree, A figure around 180 people in Australia die as a result of gun shot each year, I suspect that this constitutes a danger.

1,648 Australians died from accidental falls in 2010 according to ABS stats.

864 Australians died from accidental poisoning in the same year.

Does falling over or accidentally poisoning yourself account for far more deaths hence danger?

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 12:09pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 9:05pm: What are your thoughts on this guy deciding to end his own life Bobby, is he guilty of any crime? www.duckworksmagazine.com/09/reports/bolger/index.htm Would this guys suicide have been more acceptable if he used a rope or jumped from a height instead of using a gun?

Any of the anti gun bigots want to comment on how it was wrong for Mr Bolger to take his own life?

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 16^th, 2015 at 10:33am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 12:09pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 9:05pm: What are your thoughts on this guy deciding to end his own life Bobby, is he guilty of any crime? www.duckworksmagazine.com/09/reports/bolger/index.htm Would this guys suicide have been more acceptable if he used a rope or jumped from a height instead of using a gun? Any of the anti gun bigots want to comment on how it was wrong for Mr Bolger to take his own life?

Wasn't wrong for him to take his own life - as long as his choice was free and fair.   The method leaves a great to be desired.  Why blow your brains out or hang yourself or any of the other methods when you can down the pub score some smack and go out on a high?    ;D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D

I would wager that our lesson of increased gun ownership versus decreased crime couldn't be used in the states, since our regulations re storage are generally tougher.

Vuk11 wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 5:57pm:

Life_goes_on wrote on Jan 15th, 2015 at 4:08pm: It's Australia, not downtown Detroit. We have less than 400 homicides a year. I certainly don't feel unsafe walking the streets at nights. You can defend yourself with a weapon. That in itself is not illegal. You may feel safe that doesn't mean we don't have violent crime. What weapons are legal in self-defence? Even sticks aren't.....if you use a firearm that's illegal. If you buy pepper spray/a taser that's illegal...this is Australia remember.

thats pure nonsense, the law allows you to defend yourself using equivalent force and anything available to use as a weapon if required.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 10:53am:

I would wager that our lesson of increased gun ownership versus decreased crime couldn't be used in the states, since our regulations re storage are generally tougher.

what lesson? Its an equation that cant add up.

ian wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 11:20am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 10:53am: I would wager that our lesson of increased gun ownership versus decreased crime couldn't be used in the states, since our regulations re storage are generally tougher. what lesson? Its an equation that cant add up.

Someone had posted a link of a reference showing that even though our gun crime had decreased, legal gun ownership had increased.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 16^th, 2015 at 10:32am:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 15th, 2015 at 6:10am: Sorry but I disagree, A figure around 180 people in Australia die as a result of gun shot each year, I suspect that this constitutes a danger. 1,648 Australians died from accidental falls in 2010 according to ABS stats. 864 Australians died from accidental poisoning in the same year. Does falling over or accidentally poisoning yourself account for far more deaths hence danger?

They should not be encouraged either ? what is the point ?

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 16^th, 2015 at 10:33am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 12:09pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 9:05pm: What are your thoughts on this guy deciding to end his own life Bobby, is he guilty of any crime? www.duckworksmagazine.com/09/reports/bolger/index.htm Would this guys suicide have been more acceptable if he used a rope or jumped from a height instead of using a gun? Any of the anti gun bigots want to comment on how it was wrong for Mr Bolger to take his own life?

Dnarever or Rabbitoh or peccahead want to comment on Phil Bolger taking his own life?

The Greens are hypocrites who are all for assisted suicide, as long as you don't use a gun.

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 1:36pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 16th, 2015 at 10:33am: Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 12:09pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 9:05pm: What are your thoughts on this guy deciding to end his own life Bobby, is he guilty of any crime? www.duckworksmagazine.com/09/reports/bolger/index.htm Would this guys suicide have been more acceptable if he used a rope or jumped from a height instead of using a gun? Any of the anti gun bigots want to comment on how it was wrong for Mr Bolger to take his own life? Dnarever or Rabbitoh or peccahead want to comment on Phil Bolger taking his own life? The Greens are hypocrites who are all for assisted suicide, as long as you don't use a gun.

What do you think would be the result of anyone putting in an application for a firearms license quoting suicide as the reason ?

Dnarever wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 1:44pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 2nd, 2015 at 1:36pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 16th, 2015 at 10:33am: Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 12:09pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 9:05pm: What are your thoughts on this guy deciding to end his own life Bobby, is he guilty of any crime? www.duckworksmagazine.com/09/reports/bolger/index.htm Would this guys suicide have been more acceptable if he used a rope or jumped from a height instead of using a gun? Any of the anti gun bigots want to comment on how it was wrong for Mr Bolger to take his own life? Dnarever or Rabbitoh or peccahead want to comment on Phil Bolger taking his own life? The Greens are hypocrites who are all for assisted suicide, as long as you don't use a gun. What do you think would be the result of anyone putting in an application for a firearms license quoting suicide as the reason ?

The only reason Mr Bolger needed to own a firearm was the 2nd amendment.

Any comment on his decision to end his own life or just another useless deflection?

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 1:36pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 16th, 2015 at 10:33am: Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 12:09pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 9:05pm: What are your thoughts on this guy deciding to end his own life Bobby, is he guilty of any crime? www.duckworksmagazine.com/09/reports/bolger/index.htm Would this guys suicide have been more acceptable if he used a rope or jumped from a height instead of using a gun? Any of the anti gun bigots want to comment on how it was wrong for Mr Bolger to take his own life? Dnarever or Rabbitoh or peccahead want to comment on Phil Bolger taking his own life? The Greens are hypocrites who are all for assisted suicide, as long as you don't use a gun.

White males account for 85% of all firearm suicides in the USA, the over 50 demographic that Phil Bolger fits in are biggest group of people doing firearm suicides in the USA.

The despicable leftist cretins don't care about suicides that don't involve a firearm because it doesn't suit their agenda,they will never say a word about those who hang themselves which is around 60% of all suicide deaths in Australia.

Was it wrong for Phil Bolger to take his own life,any of the hoplophobes want to answer this one?

Panther wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 8:24pm:

|dev|null wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 2:29pm: Different types of guns.  Different licensing requirements.  Must now show a need. More training for gun owners as well.  This seems to have made sure that no gun massacres have taken place.    Gun proliferation without a "need" to be shown and no requirement for training of gun owners/users doesn't seem to have worked out too well in the USA, now has it?  Did you know: "Need" has nothing to do with an American Citizens right to keep & bear arms. The U.S. Government, by law, is not permitted to infringe upon an American Citizens right to keep & bear arms. It's estimated that there are in excess of 300 million firearms in America, but the real number will never be known because firearm registration is virtually non-existent. There are well in excess of 100 million firearms owners in America registered in gun clubs. Over 98+% of all legal firearms owned by law abiding American Citizens are never used in the commission of a crime? I could go on, but I think you need to start ignoring the political rants of the America's Anti-gun Left.

who gives a toss, you live in Bendigo not the US.

Anyone here ever contemplated suicide? Think you would still be here if you had a gun handy?

rhino wrote on Feb 6^th, 2015 at 11:54am:

Anyone here ever contemplated suicide? Think you would still be here if you had a gun handy?

Japan has a suicide rate of 19 per 100k and very few guns.

People who are suicidal choose the most convenient method.

Hanging is the most common method of suicide in Australia  it accounts for about 60% of all suicide deaths.

Of course as long as people are hanging themselves instead of using a gun the anti gun bigots will think they have achieved something.

The anti gun bigots are hypocrites who support assisted suicide providing you don't use a gun.

Why are no gun grabbers willing to comment on Phil Bolger killing himself?

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 1:48pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 2nd, 2015 at 1:44pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 2nd, 2015 at 1:36pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 16th, 2015 at 10:33am: Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 12:09pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 9:05pm: What are your thoughts on this guy deciding to end his own life Bobby, is he guilty of any crime? www.duckworksmagazine.com/09/reports/bolger/index.htm Would this guys suicide have been more acceptable if he used a rope or jumped from a height instead of using a gun? Any of the anti gun bigots want to comment on how it was wrong for Mr Bolger to take his own life? Dnarever or Rabbitoh or peccahead want to comment on Phil Bolger taking his own life? The Greens are hypocrites who are all for assisted suicide, as long as you don't use a gun. What do you think would be the result of anyone putting in an application for a firearms license quoting suicide as the reason ? The only reason Mr Bolger needed to own a firearm was the 2nd amendment. Any comment on his decision to end his own life or just another useless deflection?

Quote:

The only reason Mr Bolger needed to own a firearm was the 2nd amendment.

So you can legally buy a gun in the USA for the purpose of murdering someone, and this isn't nuts ?

Dnarever wrote on Feb 6^th, 2015 at 12:07pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 2nd, 2015 at 1:48pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 2nd, 2015 at 1:44pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 2nd, 2015 at 1:36pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 16th, 2015 at 10:33am: Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 12:09pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 9:05pm: What are your thoughts on this guy deciding to end his own life Bobby, is he guilty of any crime? www.duckworksmagazine.com/09/reports/bolger/index.htm Would this guys suicide have been more acceptable if he used a rope or jumped from a height instead of using a gun? Any of the anti gun bigots want to comment on how it was wrong for Mr Bolger to take his own life? Dnarever or Rabbitoh or peccahead want to comment on Phil Bolger taking his own life? The Greens are hypocrites who are all for assisted suicide, as long as you don't use a gun. What do you think would be the result of anyone putting in an application for a firearms license quoting suicide as the reason ? The only reason Mr Bolger needed to own a firearm was the 2nd amendment. Any comment on his decision to end his own life or just another useless deflection? Quote: The only reason Mr Bolger needed to own a firearm was the 2nd amendment. So you can legally buy a gun in the USA for the purpose of murdering someone, and this isn't nuts ?

Murder is against the law,the dumbfvkistani leftists are out in force today, I see why they are unemployable and frittering away their lives on internet forums with their codswallop..

Russel Crowe got sued for a large amount for throwing a phone at someone in a hotel in the USA, what would have happened if he shot him?

I notice how all the dopey unemployable leftists are avoiding commenting on Phil Bolgers death.

Is that the suicides you are keen o prevent?

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 6^th, 2015 at 12:02pm:

rhino wrote on Feb 6th, 2015 at 11:54am: Anyone here ever contemplated suicide? Think you would still be here if you had a gun handy? Japan has a suicide rate of 19 per 100k and very few guns. People who are suicidal choose the most convenient method. Hanging is the most common method of suicide in Australia  it accounts for about 60% of all suicide deaths. Of course as long as people are hanging themselves instead of using a gun the anti gun bigots will think they have achieved something. The anti gun bigots are hypocrites who support assisted suicide providing you don't use a gun. Why are no gun grabbers willing to comment on Phil Bolger killing himself?

Its indisputable that easier access to firearms means more suicides.

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 6^th, 2015 at 12:14pm:

I notice how all the dopey unemployable leftists are avoiding commenting on Phil Bolgers death. Is that the suicides you are keen o prevent?

Phil Bolger the boat builder? Whats your point here? Im not unemployed though, am I qualified to comment?

rhino wrote on Feb 6^th, 2015 at 12:26pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 6th, 2015 at 12:02pm: rhino wrote on Feb 6th, 2015 at 11:54am: Anyone here ever contemplated suicide? Think you would still be here if you had a gun handy? Japan has a suicide rate of 19 per 100k and very few guns. People who are suicidal choose the most convenient method. Hanging is the most common method of suicide in Australia  it accounts for about 60% of all suicide deaths. Of course as long as people are hanging themselves instead of using a gun the anti gun bigots will think they have achieved something. The anti gun bigots are hypocrites who support assisted suicide providing you don't use a gun. Why are no gun grabbers willing to comment on Phil Bolger killing himself? Its indisputable that easier access to firearms means more suicides.

Japan has virtually no firearms and one of the highest suicide rates in the world at 19 per 100k.

Explain to us why Japan has one of the highest suicide rates while having one of the lowest gun ownership rates.

I see people like you don't care about the Japs jumping off buildings and in front of trains, if thy were shooting themselves you would squeal like a pig.

rhino wrote on Feb 6^th, 2015 at 12:28pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 6th, 2015 at 12:14pm: I notice how all the dopey unemployable leftists are avoiding commenting on Phil Bolgers death. Is that the suicides you are keen o prevent? Phil Bolger the boat builder? Whats your point here? Im not unemployed though, am I qualified to comment?

Yes I met Phil when I lived in the Back Bay in Boston, he would never hurt anyone.

You want to use suicides to push your agenda tell us how what Phil did was wrong and if it would have been better if he hung himself or jumped off a building instead of using a gun.

I see Phil's suicide as a personal choice made with rational thoughts, it's despicable how cretins use his suicide to push their agenda.

Would the gun grabbers be happy if Phil chose a rope or tall building instead of his pistol to end his life?

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 6^th, 2015 at 12:37pm:

rhino wrote on Feb 6th, 2015 at 12:28pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 6th, 2015 at 12:14pm: I notice how all the dopey unemployable leftists are avoiding commenting on Phil Bolgers death. Is that the suicides you are keen o prevent? Phil Bolger the boat builder? Whats your point here? Im not unemployed though, am I qualified to comment? Yes I met Phil when I lived in the Back Bay in Boston, he would never hurt anyone.

Do you presently live in Australia or the US?   ::)

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 6^th, 2015 at 12:37pm:

You want to use suicides to push your agenda ...

Who is using suicides to push their agenda and, what is that agenda?

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 7^th, 2015 at 1:26pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 6th, 2015 at 12:37pm: rhino wrote on Feb 6th, 2015 at 12:28pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 6th, 2015 at 12:14pm: I notice how all the dopey unemployable leftists are avoiding commenting on Phil Bolgers death. Is that the suicides you are keen o prevent? Phil Bolger the boat builder? Whats your point here? Im not unemployed though, am I qualified to comment? Yes I met Phil when I lived in the Back Bay in Boston, he would never hurt anyone. Do you presently live in Australia or the US?   ::)

Australia.

I have lived and worked in Back Bay in Boston for a year and spent another year working in Boca Raton in Florida.

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 7^th, 2015 at 2:01pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 7th, 2015 at 1:26pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 6th, 2015 at 12:37pm: rhino wrote on Feb 6th, 2015 at 12:28pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 6th, 2015 at 12:14pm: I notice how all the dopey unemployable leftists are avoiding commenting on Phil Bolgers death. Is that the suicides you are keen o prevent? Phil Bolger the boat builder? Whats your point here? Im not unemployed though, am I qualified to comment? Yes I met Phil when I lived in the Back Bay in Boston, he would never hurt anyone. Do you presently live in Australia or the US?   ::) Australia. I have lived and worked in Back Bay in Boston for a year and spent another year working in Boca Raton in Florida.

Doing what and when, if you don't mind me asking?