Interesting Article on Gun Ownership in Aus.
- Thread starter crinkles
- Start date
- Status
So they admit gun ownership is on the rise, yet gun crime MIGHT be dropping, but the stats are now suddenly faulty............OK got it.
They've never been hones about what they "accomplished" in the buyback. Rumour has it that less than 10% of the SKS/AKs were ever turned in.
Cops had a field day, with old ladies handing in Winchester Commemorative rifles from dearly departed hubbies, being told they weren't part of the buyback, and subsequently registered to the officer and sold in gun shops.
There's literally millions of .22s, slug guns, and .303s out there collecting dust.
Police lost a container load of Glocks on a train from Melbourne to Sydney when they were re-arming, and it was lucky to make page 3.
Personally, I went from my 22 and 3-4 rabbit hunts per year, to a club member, and at the time, 3,000 rounds per year...plus a centrefire, another rimfire, then a single shot rimfire, .44Lever, and air rifle...there are 40 other blokes in my club who are in exactly the same position.
Our insurance rates reflect that it is the safest sport in the country, and the "homicide" rate with firearms technically includes the suicide rate with them too...they spruiked like there was no tommorrow that firearm death rates were down, while overall homicides, and tragically male suicides just switched methods.
I think that Oz is going to see another push soon...the politalk is "Every illegal gun was once a legal gun (see container of Glocks previously).
Homes in the Sydney basin getting shot up are on the increase, and instead of the headlines 6 months ago of "living next door to Sydney crime figure", they are increasingly "had to drive up a lonely cul de sac and children were sleeping when the windows of their room were shot out"
Port Arthur, the event was dodgier than a $2 Rolex, the weapon in question having been handed in to Police in an earlier gun amnesty in another state.
Cops had a field day, with old ladies handing in Winchester Commemorative rifles from dearly departed hubbies, being told they weren't part of the buyback, and subsequently registered to the officer and sold in gun shops.
There's literally millions of .22s, slug guns, and .303s out there collecting dust.
Police lost a container load of Glocks on a train from Melbourne to Sydney when they were re-arming, and it was lucky to make page 3.
Personally, I went from my 22 and 3-4 rabbit hunts per year, to a club member, and at the time, 3,000 rounds per year...plus a centrefire, another rimfire, then a single shot rimfire, .44Lever, and air rifle...there are 40 other blokes in my club who are in exactly the same position.
Our insurance rates reflect that it is the safest sport in the country, and the "homicide" rate with firearms technically includes the suicide rate with them too...they spruiked like there was no tommorrow that firearm death rates were down, while overall homicides, and tragically male suicides just switched methods.
I think that Oz is going to see another push soon...the politalk is "Every illegal gun was once a legal gun (see container of Glocks previously).
Homes in the Sydney basin getting shot up are on the increase, and instead of the headlines 6 months ago of "living next door to Sydney crime figure", they are increasingly "had to drive up a lonely cul de sac and children were sleeping when the windows of their room were shot out"
Port Arthur, the event was dodgier than a $2 Rolex, the weapon in question having been handed in to Police in an earlier gun amnesty in another state.
Originally Posted By: Win
Planning on going to Wanenmachers Arms Show in Tulsa, tomorrow. They bill themselves as the world's largest gun show.
It's the type of place anti gunners have nightmares about.
Id love to go for a day to that gun show!
Planning on going to Wanenmachers Arms Show in Tulsa, tomorrow. They bill themselves as the world's largest gun show.
It's the type of place anti gunners have nightmares about.
Id love to go for a day to that gun show!
Quote:
So it’s true to say that national crime statistics are badly in need of repair and reform.
Government that is incompetent?? Can't be. Need reform? You mean the "experts" didn't get it right the first time?
If they can't get something as simple and necessary as crime statistics correct, what else are they not getting right? Probably everything.
How is a citizen or legislator to make up his mind if this legislation is "effective"? Of course, results are not the point.
Quote:
“It's possible that the interest in guns is rising. I don't think that's a good thing, because in general it's a kind of a pastime which is more associated with Australia's past than with the modern Australia.”
If you have the gall to believe in your right to be armed, then you are simply viewing the world from an obsolete world view. What other "past" rights are obsolete in the "modern Australia"?
So it’s true to say that national crime statistics are badly in need of repair and reform.
Government that is incompetent?? Can't be. Need reform? You mean the "experts" didn't get it right the first time?
If they can't get something as simple and necessary as crime statistics correct, what else are they not getting right? Probably everything.
How is a citizen or legislator to make up his mind if this legislation is "effective"? Of course, results are not the point.
Quote:
“It's possible that the interest in guns is rising. I don't think that's a good thing, because in general it's a kind of a pastime which is more associated with Australia's past than with the modern Australia.”
If you have the gall to believe in your right to be armed, then you are simply viewing the world from an obsolete world view. What other "past" rights are obsolete in the "modern Australia"?
Tempest,
Oz never had a bill of rights, and as a convict settlement, even more so...you know, the elites setting up peons to do the work, reap the harvest, and not have the chance to respond (my children and partner had an ancestor sentenced to 7 years in Oz for stealing a bag full of rocks...they were free to return after 7 years, provided they paid their trip home).
Oz has never had a right to gun ownership, it's always been a "conditional privilege" (like America has "liberties", not "freedoms")...and self defence is not a legitimate reason for owning a firearm in this country.
Pistols have always been controlled, as the elite's means of control. Case in Point, media Magnate (you like them), Kerry Packer had a pistol stolen from his office, and it was deemed lawful...when it was impossible by law for him to have a pistol in his desk...but he was a magnate, had a safe full of gold and a pistol.
As to your underlined "modern", Oz had a successful Civilian Marksmanship Programme, as it was deemed easier to teach a shooter to march than a marcher to shoot.
That all went by the wayside, and our current laws are largely the results of the Conservative Govt in 1996 (you like Conservatives), who wheeled out literally wheelbarrows full of legislation in days.
Guns are making a comeback, as the new 20 year olds don't remember the stereotypes, and propaganda fed to us by the (Conservative) govt of the day...
Same Conservatives proposed a republic, and put it to referendum "Do you want the existing Monarchy, or a Republic in which the politicians elect the President"...obviously rigged question, then announced an overwhelming majority vote (against their strawman model).
Conservatives rejected a Bill of Rights as being "limiting the scope of human endeavours"
In a way they are right. A Bill of Rights is a Bill of limitations, or liberties (not freedom). However, their "freedom, minus these excluded activities" is probably closer to freedom, but the convict beginning makes it all moot.
Oz never had a bill of rights, and as a convict settlement, even more so...you know, the elites setting up peons to do the work, reap the harvest, and not have the chance to respond (my children and partner had an ancestor sentenced to 7 years in Oz for stealing a bag full of rocks...they were free to return after 7 years, provided they paid their trip home).
Oz has never had a right to gun ownership, it's always been a "conditional privilege" (like America has "liberties", not "freedoms")...and self defence is not a legitimate reason for owning a firearm in this country.
Pistols have always been controlled, as the elite's means of control. Case in Point, media Magnate (you like them), Kerry Packer had a pistol stolen from his office, and it was deemed lawful...when it was impossible by law for him to have a pistol in his desk...but he was a magnate, had a safe full of gold and a pistol.
As to your underlined "modern", Oz had a successful Civilian Marksmanship Programme, as it was deemed easier to teach a shooter to march than a marcher to shoot.
That all went by the wayside, and our current laws are largely the results of the Conservative Govt in 1996 (you like Conservatives), who wheeled out literally wheelbarrows full of legislation in days.
Guns are making a comeback, as the new 20 year olds don't remember the stereotypes, and propaganda fed to us by the (Conservative) govt of the day...
Same Conservatives proposed a republic, and put it to referendum "Do you want the existing Monarchy, or a Republic in which the politicians elect the President"...obviously rigged question, then announced an overwhelming majority vote (against their strawman model).
Conservatives rejected a Bill of Rights as being "limiting the scope of human endeavours"
In a way they are right. A Bill of Rights is a Bill of limitations, or liberties (not freedom). However, their "freedom, minus these excluded activities" is probably closer to freedom, but the convict beginning makes it all moot.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
So they admit gun ownership is on the rise, yet gun crime MIGHT be dropping, but the stats are now suddenly faulty............OK got it.
Indeed. A typical response.
So they admit gun ownership is on the rise, yet gun crime MIGHT be dropping, but the stats are now suddenly faulty............OK got it.
Indeed. A typical response.
Quote:
Kerry Packer had a pistol stolen from his office, and it was deemed lawful...when it was impossible by law for him to have a pistol in his desk
The regulator in charge simply used his lawful discretion in the area
:
Quote:
The Firearms Act 1996 provides for specific types of permits such as Minor's, Tranquillisers, Overseas Competitors, High Calibre Pistols, Paintball Gun, RSL Display, Museum, Theatrical Armourer etc. Additionally, a permit authorising the possession and use of firearms can also be issued in such circumstances as the Commissioner considers appropriate.
http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/services/firearms/firearms_permits
No different from clebs that get CCW's in California. Sounds like you should be more angry at the "equal justice" enforcers than the accused.
Quote:
Conservatives rejected a Bill of Rights as being "limiting the scope of human endeavours"
I did a search on this...this thread came up. Got anything more specific?
Quote:
(you like Conservatives)
"Conservative" is a relative term. All I can say on that.
Kerry Packer had a pistol stolen from his office, and it was deemed lawful...when it was impossible by law for him to have a pistol in his desk
The regulator in charge simply used his lawful discretion in the area
Quote:
The Firearms Act 1996 provides for specific types of permits such as Minor's, Tranquillisers, Overseas Competitors, High Calibre Pistols, Paintball Gun, RSL Display, Museum, Theatrical Armourer etc. Additionally, a permit authorising the possession and use of firearms can also be issued in such circumstances as the Commissioner considers appropriate.
http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/services/firearms/firearms_permits
No different from clebs that get CCW's in California. Sounds like you should be more angry at the "equal justice" enforcers than the accused.
Quote:
Conservatives rejected a Bill of Rights as being "limiting the scope of human endeavours"
I did a search on this...this thread came up. Got anything more specific?
Quote:
(you like Conservatives)
"Conservative" is a relative term. All I can say on that.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
Conservatives rejected a Bill of Rights as being "limiting the scope of human endeavours"
I did a search on this...this thread came up. Got anything more specific?
You really do just recycle the links sent from your agenda support groups, don't you ?
That was at the time of our referendum for a Republic...not much net at the time.
More recently...and using some pretty simple text in the Google Box.
http://australianconservative.com/2009/0...-the-unelected/
Quote:
Mr Howard used the 2009 Menzies Lecture, delivered at the University of Western Australia, to argue that a bill or charter of rights is “contrary to its very description, it reduces the rights of citizens to determine matters over which they should continue to exercise control
Quote:
Conservatives rejected a Bill of Rights as being "limiting the scope of human endeavours"
I did a search on this...this thread came up. Got anything more specific?
You really do just recycle the links sent from your agenda support groups, don't you ?
That was at the time of our referendum for a Republic...not much net at the time.
More recently...and using some pretty simple text in the Google Box.
http://australianconservative.com/2009/0...-the-unelected/
Quote:
Mr Howard used the 2009 Menzies Lecture, delivered at the University of Western Australia, to argue that a bill or charter of rights is “contrary to its very description, it reduces the rights of citizens to determine matters over which they should continue to exercise control
Originally Posted By: Shannow
...rejected a Bill of Rights as being "limiting the scope of human endeavours"
This was also a concern when the U.S. Bill of Rights was first being considered for adoption. The fear being that a list of specific rights would be used by future generations to infringe on rights that weren't specifically listed. That is, instead of being taken as merely highlighting existing rights, the BoR would be used as an exclusionary list to infringe on rights that didn't happen to make the list. The addition of the tenth amendment mollified these concerns just enough to ensure the adoption of our Bill of Rights.
...rejected a Bill of Rights as being "limiting the scope of human endeavours"
This was also a concern when the U.S. Bill of Rights was first being considered for adoption. The fear being that a list of specific rights would be used by future generations to infringe on rights that weren't specifically listed. That is, instead of being taken as merely highlighting existing rights, the BoR would be used as an exclusionary list to infringe on rights that didn't happen to make the list. The addition of the tenth amendment mollified these concerns just enough to ensure the adoption of our Bill of Rights.
- Status
Similar threads
