freediver wrote on Mar 12^th, 2014 at 7:09pm:


It is proof that no matter how many gun laws are introduced to punish the average gun owner, crims being crims will continue to not give a flying fat rats about what some idiot law maker says.



So no, your analogy is still incorrect.

ian wrote on Mar 11^th, 2014 at 2:15am:


I should demand that anyone who wants to discuss firearm laws should actually know the current laws with firearms before spruiking off with their gibberish.
They should state what their objective is, how the current laws are lacking,they should also provide evidence that what they propose will meet their objectives without impacting on those who are law abiding firearm owners.

To get a firearm license you have to have a clean criminal record, you have to pass background checks which include no mental health issues.
They only give firearm licenses to people who have passed the background checks and have a genuine need for one.
www.police.nsw.gov.au/services/firearms/licences/licence_and_genuine_reasons

A target shooter is not permitted to go hunting, they can only use their firearm at police approved firing ranges.
A handgun owner is not permitted to hunt with a handgun, a handgun owner can only fire their gun at police approved firing ranges.
A primary producer cannot take a category C firearm from his property, a primary producer cannot go to a police approved firing range for the purpose of practice and dialing in sights with a category C weapon.
A farmer is not allowed to have a handgun, the majority of stock they put down is at very close range, a rifle is not really practical to carry on motorbikes or ATV or even horses, a farmer should be allowed to have a handgun IMO.
I know a farmer who had a silencer which he used when putting down animals so his kids didnt know what he was doing, silencers were banned yet they are only effective with subsonic 22lr,hollywood distorts the reality with silencers.
A 338 Lapua is around 170db when fired, with a silencer this drops to around 130 db.

A firearm owner has to buy a safe to store firearms in, the Police inspect your safe yearly if category A,B,C,H and twice a month for category D.
Ammunition cannot be left in the safe it has to be locked in a separate sturdy container, gun locks must be used on weapons stored in safes.
If an unathorised person know the combination to the safe the firearm owner loses his licence and guns are confiscated.

A good behaviour bond or AVO automatically has your licence cancelled and your firearms are confiscated.

The criminal use of guns is unregulated just like the illegal drug market.

Shooting is an Olympic sport,Australian's have won many gold medals in shooting,if target shooting is their genuine reason they cannot hunt yet idiots like David Shoebridge calls what they do a bloodsport.
www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/macarthur/trap-shooter-james-grice-gunning-f...

Martin Bryant was given a disability pension for mental illness over a decade before his rampage, he did not have a licence for firearms,all licenced firearms owners were punished because of a mentally ill person who did not have a firearm licence.

freediver wrote on Mar 12^th, 2014 at 7:21pm:


The anti gun bigots tend to throw logic out the window, they cannot differentiate between mentally ill people who did not have a firearm licence like Martin Bryant and the law abiding firearm owners.
You even asked if i had a VB in one hand when i shoot, i said no that would be breaking the law, which can see you jailed for up to 5 years for shooting while intoxicated, zero blood alcohol for shooters which is reasonable unlike your assumption people have a VB in hand when shooting.

The drive by shooting statistics in Sydney before 1996 when they were unheard of compared to today where they are almost a daily occurence shows these laws have had little if any effect on criminal use of firearms.
The Lakemba Police station was a victim of a drive by shooting, that happened after our tough gun laws, perhaps your immigration policy could have prevented that one.
www.smh.com.au/nsw/police-station-attack-saleh-jamal-acquitted-and-freed-2013031...

The homicide rate has stayed about the same since our tough gun laws, it is similar to the homicide rate in New Zealand which allows law abiding firearm owners to have semi auto rifles and silencers.
The suicide rate has stayed about the same,more people are using other methods like hanging.
So while gun deaths have dropped we see the homicide rate is pretty much the same, more people are getting stabbed,less people are killing themselves with guns yet the numbers of hangings has increased to keep the suicide rate about the same.

Schools in the USA have been gun free zones since 1990, did that stop people from going in and shooting kids?
Why have there been no shootings at gun shows or NRA conventions,do those who do mass killings prefer easy targets?

Quote:


I expect they are the source of most of them. The police probably have detailed statistics on it. Why get them from overseas when you can just steal them from your law abiding neighbour? Or do you suggest that the drive-by shooters are too "law abiding" for that?

Quote:


A very reasonable question, seeing as you were complaining about snakes sneaking up on you because of your hearing protection. At the time you went all silent about it. I assumed it was out of embarrassment, so I am surprised you brought it up again.

Quote:


Funny thing is, I haven't heard of them, even today. Do you have any actual evidence of an increase, or would that get in the way of your little persecution fantasy?

Quote:


What are you suggesting? That kids should bring guns to school?

Bigol:

BigOl64 wrote on Mar 13^th, 2014 at 5:52am:


You are confused Bigol. An analogy is not evidence. The is actual evidence - very clear evidence. The analogy was just a failed attempt to get you to realise how stupid your argument is. I tried a more direct explanation, but you don't even seem to be aware of it, despite quoting it. Perhaps that is why you posted such a pissweak response. You have heard it all before, but you still have no answer to it.

If these laws reduce the number of illegal firearms, I am all for them. There is absolutely no need for civilians to have guns as the norm. Fair enough if they are members of rifle clubs, but hand guns should only be available to members of the service......police or (when on base) the military.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Mar 15^th, 2014 at 3:14pm:


Self-defence has to be proportionate to the threat. Defending oneself is not a matter of having a firearm at hand "just in case" whether it be at home, carrying a gun in your vehicle, or on your person. The likelihood of it being stolen, it being used against you is considerable if an untrained member of the public is allowed to carry a firearm as the norm. Also the convenience of ending an argument with a gun is a very real possibility, especially if the person with the gun has a history of mental instability, not unlike the current case in SA.

viewpoint wrote on Mar 15^th, 2014 at 3:45pm:


The question is "Do you believe that the law-abiding citizen has a right to self defence?".

Quote:


I pointed that out. I also though it was strange that no-one wanted to see the evidence. But given all the bullshit we have seen spun here, it is hardly surprising.

It was not a confused analogy, BTW. It was a perfectly apt analogy for the crap that gets spun here.

Quote:


No problem. When junkies hold up convenience stores with syringes, knives, machetes, hand spears etc, it is direct evidence that the laws are working. Not many Australians get their head accidentally blown off by a knife. In the US by comparison, there are large areas where people are literally too afraid to go.

Quote:


No they don't. Crims don't want guns. Guns are a means to an end, and gun laws change that equation. We are not talking about drugs that people are addicted to.