- 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:


former sig line of, DreamRyderX

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






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!

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


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 ?         




Quote:

'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

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


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_Les...

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


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.

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


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.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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.

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. 

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

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


Quote:

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.

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



Hospitals and doctors weren't originally designed to kill.

/thread

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

"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.

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


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.

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


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 16^th, 2015 at 10:33am:



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?   

Vuk11 wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 5:57pm:
thats pure nonsense, the law allows you to defend yourself using equivalent force and anything available to use as a weapon if required.

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



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 10:33am:


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.

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


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?

Panther wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 8:24pm:
who gives a toss, you live in Bendigo not the US.

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


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?

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


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?

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 6^th, 2015 at 12:02pm:
Its indisputable that easier access to firearms means more suicides.

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


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.

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


Do you presently live in Australia or the US?   

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


Australia.

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