<< URGENT ACTION NOT TAKEN ~ MAIN ~ LANCET OWNS THIS >>
TEXANS UNAMUSED
Speaking in Queensland, the former Prime Minister recalls a recent Texan visit:
JOHN HOWARD: A gathering of supporters and friends turned up and I was invited to make a few remarks and one of the questioners got up and said would you name three things that, you know, you are really proud of about what you did as Prime Minister?
And I said, well yes. Chronologically, the first thing I’ll start with is gun control.
(audience laughter)
JOHN HOWARD: That wasn’t their reaction.
I’m with the Texans.
Add this to his inability to speak Mandarin and you can see why we dumped the fascist prick.
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2008 04 15 at 02:31 AM • permalinkReminds me of my favourite Texas (or Texan) t-shirt: a map of Texas, with a picture of an electric chair in the middle, and the slogan “Welcome to Texas. Don’t f**k up while you’re here.”
Posted by ErnestBludger on 2008 04 15 at 02:50 AM • permalinkCost him my vote at the election straight after that.
Daresay it cost him a lot more than it got himPosted by thefrollickingmole on 2008 04 15 at 03:06 AM • permalinkYet I now own two firearms: a .308 bolt action and a 12 Guage 6 shot lever action shotgun which I would never have dreamed of owning before the guns buy back. and I have owned some pretty powerful assualt type rifles in the past including SKS and 7.62 semi auto’s w/20 rnd mags. Ones I could never legally own or register in Westen Australia.
Getting the former licenced was a breeze.
Posted by deadparrot on 2008 04 15 at 03:19 AM • permalink#8 Exactly.
There can be no underestimating the damage he did to Liberal party at state level. The ALP was smart enough to promise the Sporting Shooters Assoc. that they’d never go any further than Howard and that they’d implement the new gun control laws such that licensing would be a rubber stamp.
To those opposed to the changes in the law, do you disagree with the changes completely, or just their extent?
Posted by attilathepun on 2008 04 15 at 04:16 AM • permalink#14 What John did was make us a nation of straight shooters.
Posted by deadparrot on 2008 04 15 at 04:40 AM • permalinkI love this blog, but gun control is an important issue and Howard handled it well.
Fire away.
Posted by Abu Chowdah on 2008 04 15 at 05:01 AM • permalinkattilathepun
The bit I objected to was that in the 4 years I had my rifle they never once sent the renewal to the right address. But the week after it expired (after the new legislation) I had 2 coppers come to my minesite and threaten dire fines and charges if I didnt surrender it.
That was a shitheads trick.
Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2008 04 15 at 05:08 AM • permalinkOT. The local school’s P&T meeting is live on Fox evening news. Or is it your worse nightmare kindy meeting?
No!! It’s the Summit live and appalling.
Inane questions chaired by Kevvie and all answers are applauded.
Kevvie writes notes, Jenny Macklin squeeks some answers and Joolya throws a sound like a tissue covered sneeze.
Surely a nation wishing to become a republic has not reduced itself to such a pathetic level.
Even Labor supporters have to be shrivelling up in their arm chairs with embarrassment.
Clearly this is the start of their demise.
Even Kevvie appears to be thinking ‘This ain’t going the way I thought it would’.
Let’s hope the media reply accordingly.
Interesting - and I certainly believe the bullet proof vest was insulting. Unless they had received credible indications there may have been a problem it was definitely a slap in the face.
As for the laws, I do respect Howard for at least genuinely believing in them, rather than ramming them through for political advantage (quite the opposite in some cases it would seem).
My understanding was that some of the guns banned were better off banned, but that it extended too far. Victoria made it necessary to have a licence to play paintball!
Posted by attilathepun on 2008 04 15 at 05:39 AM • permalinkTake my guns, take my vote!
.... in the end, JoHo NEEDED those votes, and they weren’t there.
He lost government.
Suffer… asshole.
Posted by Steve at the pub on 2008 04 15 at 05:42 AM • permalink#22. You voted for Rudd, then?
I don’t think Howard’s the asshole.
Posted by Abu Chowdah on 2008 04 15 at 05:57 AM • permalink#20
Kevvie writes notes, Jenny Macklin squeeks some answers and Joolya throws a sound like a tissue covered sneeze.
It’d make a change from sounding like she’s squeezing out a pooh.
Gun control is using both hands. Seriously now, has this idiot legislation lowered the number of tooled up criminals, or reduced the fire rate of their arsenals? Did it lead to a vast increase in the criminal capability of the raskols in PNG and the moronic Che impersonations of addled Kanaka cadres like the BRA by providing a vast source of cheap semi-auto rifles and shotguns (usually exchanged for high grade ganja, fucking up Northern Aboriginal communities even more).
The 1st home buyers scheme was stoopid, the expansion of the public sector psychotic and this bit of nanny state excess suicidal.
At best JWH was the better of two bad choices in most circumstances- while I admire his dedication, tenacity and forthright nature, policy-wise there was a fag paper between him and whoever was on the other side of the chamber on many issues.
Where’s our Thatcher?
BTW, before anyone starts bleating about making a bad situation worse, in backward, ethnic gang-riddled Un Zud you can own anything short of a howitzer, and I don’t recall too many shootouts during Otago/Wellington games, or drive-bys on the Waikikamucou dairy, eh.
An armed socity is a polite society- how much randon violence (and home invasions for that matter) occur in places with concealed carry? And what’s the assault/rape/murder rape rate like in Switzerland, where everyone in armed and can be mobilised in 24 hours?
Abu Chowda, Howard took guns from people who would otherwise have voted for him.
In the end Howard needed those votes.
Even Gough Whitlam didn’t try to take guns. (to put into perspective what an asshole Howard is)
Posted by Steve at the pub on 2008 04 15 at 06:41 AM • permalinkHoward’s gun laws were a stupid knee jerk reaction to the actions of that crazy psychopath in Tasmania. The laws were seen as an insult to the many law abiding gun owners throughout Australia, badly thought out, repressive and ridiculous, and is probably the one thing that I resent in JWH’s Prime Ministership.
It did not gain him a single vote outside his traditional support base, and probably cost thousands of rural and conservative city dwellers votes.
It made lawbreakers out of many thousands of formerly law abiding citizens whose guns went underground rather than handing them in to the State.
The Men of No Appearance and sundry other armed criminals haven’t been affected in the slightest by any gun bans, of course. That’s why they are criminals; They don’t obey the law!
Posted by Pedro the Ignorant on 2008 04 15 at 07:06 AM • permalinkAs U.S. elections approach, inevitably one of my hardline friends here in Texas will declare, “If [some liberal Republican] wins, I’m moving to Australia.”
When I tell them I’ll buy their firearms before they go—to prevent their confiscation by Aussie customs—they give me that same cockeyed look as a hound when you blow a dog whistle in his face.
They just can’t believe such nannyism rules in a wide-open place like Australia ... our most reliable military ally.
Makes me wonder what our black eye is, in the eyes of sensible Australians.
Posted by Rittenhouse on 2008 04 15 at 07:23 AM • permalinkIt wouldn’t have been my reaction, either. So did he not do his homework? Was he that clueless about the US?
Posted by rightwingprof on 2008 04 15 at 07:30 AM • permalink#35- Only one? Bloody hell, by the time you include Michael Moore, the whole hippy concept, basically anything that comes out of California besides The Beach Boys, gangster(a)ism in most forms, from ethnic to motorcycle (and fucking hip hop), Brittney Spears, Hollywood troother/global warmening nutjobs, Algorism, Scientology, bloody basketball, tort lawyers (especially that shithead Erin Brokovich), Ralph Nader and the burgeoning infestation of ferret-faced busybodies spawned by his “activism”, $300 sandshoes, main courses that wouldn’t choke a rat and cost more than the sandshoes you’re wearing, militant feminism, birkenstock bolsheviks, bling...........I could go on, but you’re looking a bit worse for wear as it is; I’ll get you a steak for that black eye, and a full bodycast for the rest.
But you’re nowhere near as obnoxious as Europe.
Gun control is as easy as ABC.
No ABC there would have not been gun control.
Why blame politicians for following what seems sensible at least to the ABC.
And the ABC does not need a vote.Posted by stackja1945 on 2008 04 15 at 07:47 AM • permalink#39 Habib-
Ah yes, tort lawyers. That’s it.
Posted by Rittenhouse on 2008 04 15 at 07:48 AM • permalinkThe Men of No Appearance and sundry other armed criminals haven’t been affected in the slightest by any gun bans, of course. That’s why they are criminals; They don’t obey the law!
#34, exactly right. Gun control certainly didn’t seem to affect these nice fellows.
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2008 04 15 at 08:00 AM • permalinkHow I Became an American:
A Former San Franciscan
Describes His Decline and FallMy pickup truck has mudflaps
And I wear hunting plaid;
It wasn’t always like this –
Here’s how I turned out bad:I was a social worker
Who dated teenage boys
And dismissed Country music
As just a lot of noise.Then one fine day it happened,
I felt my id collapse
When Starbucks said they wouldn’t
Stock avocado wraps.Right then my heart turned bitter
And learned a cruel lesson;
I turned to Bible classes
And my Smith & Wesson.What if Obama loses?
I’l be so bitter that
I just might move to Houston
And buy a cowboy hat.The Frogs may have come up with the concept (but I’ve always had a decent feed in Francais, even in the dogshit-daubed snootiness of Paris) but “California cuisine” combined with rapacious NYC spivs who found that they could be rude to stockbrokers while feeding them a Whiskas-rejected sardine dispensed with a microslicer,served on a fragment of winos underpants and garnished with earoli for the price of a Humvee resulted in the sort of calorie chase now encountered in many a Harbourside brasserie and bistro found in the “Paris end of Collins St”.
#20 #27
Just heard female reporter on commercial radio, she was orgasmic about the experience.
The media has gone crazy.Posted by stackja1945 on 2008 04 15 at 08:09 AM • permalinkIrrespective of the fact that semi’s, pumps and automatic shot guns were banned, you can still legally own a firearm in Australia, and although I haven’t tried it, I’d like to get me one of those nice 0.50 cal bolt action thingies or a 0.338 cal which look mighty fine.
Or I could go down the local pub and get myself an old 9 mm Browning SLP, or 0.40 cal Glock if I set my mind to it..
Posted by deadparrot on 2008 04 15 at 08:10 AM • permalink#47
Legal gun ownership is not the problem.
Illegal gun laws need to be tougher but does not suit the usual suspects. Simpler for the usual suspects to seek to ban all guns.Posted by stackja1945 on 2008 04 15 at 08:27 AM • permalinkI could almost write it off as a kneejerk if it wasn’t for the second bite he took at handguns years later. Responsible law abiding citizens were vilified both times for either political or ideological expedience. And the media was also complicit. The only good that did come out of it - & there’s a lo-oooot better ways of having done it - was the political strengthening of shooters by mandating membership to a peak association.
“Gun control” is one of those stinking, abused terms used to avoid saying what gun control nuts really hold up as an end ideal - total disarming of the law-abiding populace. Criminals are, as always, exempt from the plans.
Posted by stahlblume on 2008 04 15 at 09:13 AM • permalinkOT keanu reeves wants to star in a musical. Gone With the Polar Bears perhaps. Or the role of sean penn in My Little Red Cup. Or maybe he could reunite with co-star alannis morissette & do an all-singing, all-dancing reprise of his 2006 hit The Great Warmening
If a politician offered up a bill that set the penalties for using a gun in any crime to at least (say) 30 years without parole, while automatically pardoning anyone using a weapon in self-defense or defense of others, I think that we would finally see a rational form of gun control. (Not that we ever will.)
Instead, gun control is seldom applied in a rational form. Far more often than not, it targets honest people using weapons for sport or self-defense, and not the criminals. It’s easier for people afraid of guns to apply a blanket ban or restrictions in a knee jerk fashion, and then complain about how guns are destroying our society.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2008 04 15 at 09:28 AM • permalinkI don’t have a problem with gun licencing, but gun bans and gun “control” haven’t worked here in the US. The areas with the most stringent laws and bans are the areas with the worst gun crime, and the do-gooders don’t seem to understand the cause and effect. As others have said, an armed society is a polite society, and somebody is far less likely to break into my house if he thinks I’m in there with a gun in my hand.
Texas, btw, like all the other states in the south and west (yes, even California), has a long, proud tradition of gun ownership. Mr. Howard should not have been surprised at their reaction.
OK, I’ll buy into this one, if only for the sake of playing the Devil’s advocate. The weapons that were banned following the Port Arthur Massacre are not the ones you need to administer a lead aspirin to a home invader, or send a roo tumbling at 300m. The weapons he banned were military/police type weapons that you really don’t need unless you’re providing suppressing fire for a manoeuvre team or you’re a postal worker trying to beat Martin Bryant’s tally from a clock tower. If you need a 30 round magazine to nail a porcine beastie then quite frankly, you don’t deserve a rifle. If the ominous sound of a bolt action 303 isn’t enough to convince the “man of no appearance” that he ought to go and find another house to rob, then the sucking chest wound the round you’ve just chambered creates will.
If you sense of masculine pride demands that you play with toys more potent and capable than that, 131901 will get you you’re nearest Army Reserve depot. Do something positive about it. Coincidentally, that also covers the “we’ll need ‘em when the Indons come a’callin” argument.
John Howard was a great Prime Minister. He was a real leader who had the stones to make the tough calls, even though he knew it would cost him votes.
In the meantime, take the bolt action rifle you’re still legally allowed to own in this country, and learn to fuckin shoot.
Posted by Richard Sharpe on 2008 04 15 at 09:57 AM • permalinkOh how nice. A person deciding what everyone “needs” again. Along with projecting his own inadequacies upon those icky awful people who decide they want to own firearms Mr. Sharpe doesn’t like.
Problem with firearms is, when you need them it’s usually too late to go off to the shop to purchase one.
Posted by Patrick Chester on 2008 04 15 at 10:40 AM • permalink#58 Richard, you sound like you’ve got stones too… is it the kidneys or the gall bladder though? If that’s the best excuse the devil’s advocate can raise then he should consider representing himself in future. Pissweak.
Posted by stahlblume on 2008 04 15 at 10:44 AM • permalinkLyle—Just so’s you know, the only folks who wear cowboy hats in Houston are lawyers, oilmen and politicians.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2008 04 15 at 11:06 AM • permalinkThe weapons he banned were military/police type weapons that you really don’t need
If I got rid of all the things I don’t need, I’d have a pretty empty house.
Sometimes I like to own things because they’re fun and look cool. I don’t own an AR-15, but they sure look cool and fun.
Does anybody need a Ferrari or a motorcycle or a bottle of Scotch? No. Are they dangerous? In the wrong hands, yes. Damned if I can see the difference.
If you need a 30 round magazine to nail a porcine beastie then quite frankly, you don’t deserve a rifle. If the ominous sound of a bolt action 303 isn’t enough to convince the “man of no appearance” that he ought to go and find another house to rob, then the sucking chest wound the round you’ve just chambered creates will.
But you see, Richard, many of us gun nuts do not buy a firearm for its effectiveness in killing animals or humans. As I said above, it’s simply because they’re fun and interesting. So if you promise not to ascribe my fondness for certain arms to a lack of skill or to Mall Ninja fantasies, I promise not to ascribe your opinions on the killing effectiveness of other arms to an unseemly blood-lust. Deal?
Re #68, I have to go along with Dave, Richard.
You do have a point that most people don’t need something with a 30 round drop out magazine. And most people don’t need that sort of firepower for personal protection. But, dammit, they are interesting and fun to shoot!!!
And I return to my comment that most gun legislation simply assumes that the weapons are bad, ignores the human element in any crime, and punishes the honest people as much as (if not more) the criminal who ignore the laws anyway. Quite literally, most anti-gun laws are a feeble attempt at best, and counterproductive at worst.
I say that as a responsible gun owner. I do not intend to go postal at work. Without going into details, I can assure you that I approach firearms in my agency with such disdain that some people are surprised, given my background.
But that’s because I treat firearms seriously. As with Dave, I don’t want to be lumped in with gang bangers, terrorists, and homocidal maniacs, thankyouverymuch.
This is a significant difference between American and Australian cultures, a discussion that I’ve had before. In Australia, guns didn’t win the West. In Australia, there’s no Second Amendment permitting gun ownership by citizens*.
So I understand that many people outside the United States don’t equate firearms with freedom and safety (mores the pity, if you look at some countries across the globe). But we do have that long tradition, enforced by law, of private weapon ownership. That tradition has worked well in the past, and I see little reason to change it drastically now*.....and many reasons to maintain it.
=======================
*: For the record, I am in favor of background checks and some weapons restrictions (e.g., fully automatic weapons need not be openly available). But I am adamantly against blanket prohibitions and restrictions. The only persons that should not buy firearms are criminals, young children, and the mentally incompetent. Not that I expect any law to actually prevent criminals, children, or the mentally incompetent from buying weapons. That’s just my personal opinion, essentially unenforceable by law.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2008 04 15 at 03:08 PM • permalink18
but gun control is an important issue and Howard handled it well.
Fire away.Abu, what’s your rebuttal to Albury Shifton’s point @ #1
I realised that all the mass shootings take place in areas where guns are banned that I wised up.
And which of you is likelier to have the facts and statistics to back your position?
Holy crap, 68 comments? I’d better read ahead a bit ... Ha! Sure enough! There’s always one of these!
Richard 58If you sense of masculine pride demands that you play with toys more potent and capable than that,
58 posts is longer than it usually takes for one of these inevitable projectionists to start discussing your masculinity, in lieu of your liberty, but they always DO show up, don’t they?
Posted by formerly Huck Foley on 2008 04 15 at 04:26 PM • permalink#75. Goodoh. Will you also remind us when the anniversary of Port Arthur comes around as an example of what happens when it doesn’t?
Richard Sharpe is right. I have shot roos and I have shot pigs. If you need an automatic or assault weapon for the job, you are out of your depth.
I agree that the ban probably went too far, but disagree that civilians need heavy ordinance. As stated, if you need to play with big boys toys, join the forces. And the criminal argument is a moot point. Crims will always have access to arms.
Posted by anonymous guest on 2008 04 15 at 07:03 PM • permalinkGun Control has been expensive for the Libs.
Cost them every single State Government and ultimately the Federal Government.
That’s what happens when you start screwing with people who vote for you. They stop voting for you. Libs: Missing about a million voters?
They won’t stand a chance until they say sorry to firearm owners and make drastic ammends.
JWH must be a Gun Control zealot if he still doesn’t get this.
#70 TRJ Actually there is a long tradition of firearm use in early Australia. Diggers on the goldfields were heavily armed, and travellers often carried several fireams so they could fire more than one shot before reloading.
The difference now is that most of the Australian population lives in the capital cities, and most of the rest lives in larger regional towns. The vast majority of city dwellers cannot see a use or need for firearms in their own lives, but they do see the news items about armed crime. So they tend to support gun control.
For the foolish few:
Government can’t be trusted on this issue. Gun Owners have been under a creeping and incessant assault from Government ever since they “did the right thing” and submitted to Licensing and the later Registration. You might be reasonable people. Government isn’t.
Discussions about not “needing” an assault rifle are ridiculous. The Golfing equivalent of what your saying is you don’t “need” 9 iron’s. At the end of the day all guns can kill, does it matter if your beaten to death with a putter or a 9 iron, is there any difference?
Note: The the big nasty assault rifles were the least mis-used type of firearm. Most deadly gun? The .22 pea rifle. More people killed with them than any other type of firearm. Discriminating firearms by class is a pointless exercise in hair splitting similtaneously invented by the Nazi Party and a few other similarly nasty regimes.
Gun Control is absolute bunk.
In Queensland I applied for a waiver on the requirement to attend a Weapons Safety and Handling Course quoting my military experience. I claimed I was qualified to use and teach all weapons in the Infantry armoury from 9mm Browning pistol through to 106mm RCL and all weapons in the communist armoury having fired most and dodged the rest. I got a reply from some clerk, endowed with the power of Hitler, saying I needed to report to the local contractor to be taught all of these things by a pimply faced 21 year old. I declined. I also declined to hand in my weapons.
I was having coffee some time later with an old army friend and we were looking at my .303 and Arisake I kept for historical reasons and I remarked I should put them out of sight before the wallopers notice them.
“They already have” he replied.
“Oh, and what did you do after the Army?”
“Joined the Police - I’m a Sergeant in the buy-back program”
“Five minutes after you’re gone they will be to” and he never came back to check me.Richard Sharpe, you are right from a professional point of view but it is nice to own and handle a thing of beauty and many semi-auto rifles are just that. I sympathize with those who want autos but I take more pleasure from dropping a pig over a good distance with the solid thump of a .303 than I would with a barking M16 and half a mag to do the same damage.
Habib - my first laugh of the day Whiskas-rejected sardine dispensed with a microslicer. I’m not sure if the RAAF are ready for your writing style but hey, it should raise a smile.
Posted by KevGillett on 2008 04 15 at 07:45 PM • permalinkAnonymous someone..... Perhaps if an ordinary citizen had been armed the Port Arthur killings wouldn’t have been as horrendous. Same with the Virginia Tech murders, Luby’s restaurant, ad nauseum. In Zimbabwe the govt. has all the guns as well. Port Aurthur could never happen there , could it ?
Then you point out that criminals will always have guns. So , I guess you’re saying that only the govt. and criminals should be armed. I yield to your superior logic.
Please note where I wrote that civilians needed heavy or automatic weaponry.I didn’t. In the U.S. it’s common wisdom that the second amendment is not about hunting.
Then there is the implied Chickenhawk comments. I served in the peacetime Navy. 73 to 75, unheroicly . If you know of any allied country that will accept 52 yr. old recruits I’m willing to sign up tomorrow. As far as your hunting experience is concerned I congratulate you on making meat the old fashioned way. Same here. I hunt deer with a bolt action rifle, not a semi auto as the former is more accurate and powerful. If you think I might be out of my depth in the hunting field you’re welcome to challenge me to a shooting contest with any weapon you care to specify.I’m a member of a well appointed shooting club where we could contest the issue. Shotgun, rifle or pistol. I remain ,sir or ma’am your humble servant.I agree that the ban probably went too far, but disagree that civilians need heavy ordinance. As stated, if you need to play with big boys toys, join the forces. And the criminal argument is a moot point. Crims will always have access to arms.
Well, now I’m really confused. You admit banning “heavy ordnance” will have no effect on criminal access, but still think law-abiding people don’t “need” them so they shouldn’t have them. I’m trying to sniff out the logic there, but all I can come up with is simple blue-nose disapproval.
BTW, me and the other gun nuts already put that “need” nonsense to rest. Unless your home contains nothing but nutritive food and simple clothing, you really don’t want to start deciding what other people “need.” Seriously.
...you really don’t want to start deciding what other people “need.”
This sez it all. Seriously.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2008 04 15 at 09:58 PM • permalink82, 85 points noted.
1. True, if people had been armed at PA it may have been less terrible. But they ARE armed in the US, and mass shootings continue to occur.
2. Agree, “need” is the wrong term. But you both seem to know firearms, and agree that automatic/assault weapons are not necessary for what you want to achieve. Why then should they be available to people with minimal training and experience?
3. Yes criminals will get guns. I would have thought that by regulating heavy weapons this might at least have the effect of making them more expensive and therefore not as cost efficient for the boys to use; but I have no knowlege of the black market and therfore really have no basis for that argument. However, again if you are competent with a shotgun or bolt action rifle, this should be sufficient for home defence without having to resort to automatics. But you are quite right and I am wrong regarding the point of differentiating between weapons; the only defence I could raise is that automatics allow one to spray a lot of bullets around in a very short time.
No chickenhawk comments were intended or directed at you. I don’t want to make this personal. My point of view is that I have seen too many powerful guns in the hands of too many people not equipped to handle them.
I don’t agree with the “armed society is a polite society” argument, at least not any more. That works if the community is rooted in a tradition of respect for the rights and property of others and and accepting the consequences for your actions; once those principles are gone, then an armed society is an anarchic society.
Still, even that’s a circular argument as you’d be mad not to be armed in such a society.
Posted by anonymous guest on 2008 04 15 at 10:03 PM • permalinkDave S, I don’t think you have put the “need” argument to rest by comparing assault rifles to a bottle of scotch - unless you honestly believe that nothing should be banned or regulated ever.
Explosives are great fun to play with. An RPG would be an absolute blast (excuse the pun). Claymore mines could provide hours of entertainment. However, I do not believe that civilians should be allowed possess such things.
Where things can be dangerous to the user and others then a line must be drawn between personal freedom and public safety. Where that line is drawn will depend on a whole host of factors, one of which is the “need” for the thing in question.
Unfortunately “they are fun to play with and look cool” is not sufficient justification.
To use your example, Ferraris and motorcycles are dangerous in the wrong hands, which is why they are heavily regulated. You need to be a certain age to drive/ride them, you can’t have certain engine capacity/power to weight ratio when on your P’s, you can’t drive above certain limits on public roads, you can drink too much and drive one, you have to have them registered etc etc.
So in a way, you are right - there is no difference between cars/motorcycles and guns - our personal freedom to own whatever we want and do with them whatever we want is subject to restrictions, as it must be if we want to live in a society.
Posted by attilathepun on 2008 04 15 at 10:06 PM • permalink#58 - Richard, I did join the ARES, and after 7 years of playing with the SLR, I kind of wanted one at home. I also wanted am M-60, but would have settled for an SLR. So I blame the Reserves for creating my addiction.
It’s not that I’m a lousy shot when taking down roos or anything like that - they’re just fun to use (albeit expensive).
Do I need one? Hell no. But I don’t really need my 4WD either, but I still like having it and using it.
I am content with having a bolt action .308, and would like to have a .303 (if I could find one in reasonable nick).... but I still want that old SLR - just for kicks.
All the buy back got from me was a Ruger .22 semi-auto. Heaps of fun, but about all it could drop was a rabbit.
Posted by mr creosote on 2008 04 15 at 10:32 PM • permalinkA.G. 76
I have shot roos and I have shot pigs. If you need an automatic or assault weapon for the job, you are out of your depth.
If you’re in Compton during the Rodney King riots, and your family lives upstairs from your storefront, and you LACK an automatic weapon, you are out of your depth.
And the criminal argument is a moot point. Crims will always have access to arms.
Actually, that’s exactly what makes it NOT a moot point.
Posted by formerly Huck Foley on 2008 04 15 at 10:39 PM • permalinkUnfortunately “they are fun to play with and look cool” is not sufficient justification.
We’re going to continue to disagree on this point.
To use your example, Ferraris and motorcycles are dangerous in the wrong hands, which is why they are heavily regulated. You need to be a certain age to drive/ride them
And you need to be a certain age to purchase a gun… and you can’t be a felon, or have a mental illness, etc etc.
you can’t have certain engine capacity/power to weight ratio when on your P’s, you can’t drive above certain limits on public roads, you can drink too much and drive one, you have to have them registered etc etc.
And I would have no problem with a gun license except that, inevitably, anti-gun politicians would simply make the license fee prohibitively expensive.
So in a way, you are right - there is no difference between cars/motorcycles and guns - our personal freedom to own whatever we want and do with them whatever we want is subject to restrictions, as it must be if we want to live in a society.
Exactly - which is why you can’t fire a gun in the city limits, within a certain distance from a home, etc.
There’s a fellow named Mike Dillon in Arizona, I believe, who owns a jet with a 20mm cannon. He flies out to his desert property and strafes with it. And why not? He’s not hurting anyone.
We’re all capitalists here. “Need” has nothing to do with it. As long as you’re not hurting anyone, then mazeltov.
A.G. 88
But they ARE armed in the US, and mass shootings continue to occur.
They were all DISarmed at Virginia Tech, and THAT is where the shooting occurred. Coincidence?
Posted by formerly Huck Foley on 2008 04 15 at 10:48 PM • permalinkStirred up a real hornet’s nest here haven’t I? I really don’t care that much about gun control as an issue. The real problem I have with it is that both sides argue from an emotive point of view. Some of the comments here are proof positive of that. On the other hand, the other side of “guns kill people dude” is equally as intellectually bankrupt. One of the reasons that I sit where I do in the political spectrum is that I like to think that I look at issues on the basis of their intellectual merit. Based on that, I’ve decided that Climate Change is a rort, Socialism is a pipe dream and anti-human, Islam is a religion of hate, and that there are certain types of weapons that probably shouldn’t be available to just anyone. I’m sure that this is not a whacko sort of a concept; I just draw that line at semi/auto assault rifles rather than at RPGs like some others. This opinion is based on a thorough and working knowledge of weapons, gained through 15 years of service to Queen and Country, up to and including shoulder fired anti-armour weapons.
If anyone can provide a valid reason why they need a gas operated weapon, I’m all ears. If those reasons include anything about them being fun or interesting, then I’m very sorry, please check your weapons at the door.
Posted by Richard Sharpe on 2008 04 15 at 10:49 PM • permalink#88
Mass shootings in the US occur exclusively in “gun free” zones. There are numerous examples of permit holders preventing/minimising mass shootings. Australia is essentially a “gun-free zone”.
Semi-automatics allow you to fire another shot very rapidly, but doesn’t guarantee you’ll hit anything. Anyone who thinks a semi-auto gives an unskilled shooter an advantage doesn’t know what they are talking about.
#89
While cars etc, are regulated, similar regulation for firearms would eliminate; waiting periods, permits to purchase, restrictions on type (for licence holders), requirement to show a need, barriers to interstate transport and use, safe storage requirements, restrictions on use on private property to name the most obvious.
anonymous guest… I appreciate both your view and your polite reply. You might notice in two of the references I made. Virginia tech and Luby’s restaurant that both occurred in gun free zones. In other words , the only armed person in both instances was the perpetrator. This despite the worldwide view that society in the U.S. is armed to the teeth. Unfortunately ,we can revisit this issue when a mass killing occurs in a civilised country like Britain, Canada, or Australia where more restrictive gun laws will , no doubt, make such horrors impossible in the future. I sincerely hope I’m wrong.
For me , I insist that my wife of 26 yrs. takes her Smith with her whenever she goes somewhere slightly iffy. Better to have it and not need it , than not to have it at all.
Exactly - there are already limits on gun ownership and use, and I assume from your reply that you agree with these?
If so, what limits are placed on use/ownership will be a balancing act. One of the factors in that balance will be the “need” for the thing.
It is why knives have fewer restrictions on them - the need for them is such that society places fewer restrictions on their ownership, despite their ability to maim and wound.
Assault rifles have greater restrictions - to the point of being banned for non-military personnel because the need for them (including the need to have an awesome time shooting them) is not considered sufficient to outweigh their potential for killing.
Posted by attilathepun on 2008 04 15 at 11:19 PM • permalinkRichard Sharpe.... I’m a fan of yours and everyone here who wears or has ever worn the uniform. That said, I will refer you to my Warsaw ghetto anniversary comment. The unfortunate Jews in Warsaw could have used some gas operated firepower in their time of need. Once again , the second amendment ain’t about hog hunting.
I think I’ll start saving up for a FN-Fal or maybe an M-14. Semi- auto, of course.I already have an AR15 for targets and wild dogs.My bolt action Sako is only for serious hunting. God Bless America! God Save Australia!
I have never pointed a weapon at another human being.I hope I never have to.
#97.
I assume you are replying to my #95?
If so, no I don’t agree with the current restrictions on gun ownership. They are far too restrictive, and I believe they do not serve a useful purpose.
Using your car analogy, can you explain why Ferraris are not restricted in the same way as semi-autos? (Not “assault rifles” for Pete’s sake. A .22 rimfire semi-auto is not an assault rifle, but it’s banned)
#99, I was actually responding to Dave S’ #92 (this sounds like an episode of Get Smart), but to to respond to your #99:
Do you believe in any restrictions on gun ownership? If so, what factors should be considered in deciding the extent of them?
It wasn’t my car analogy, I was responding to Dave drawing similarities. But Ferraris are regulated the same extent as other other cars (except for P Platers) because the risk of their misuse and the resulting harm from that are considered similar.
Whether a .22 rimfire semi-auto should have been banned sounds like a perfectly legitimate argument, but it is argument that implicitly acknowledges that some weapons should be banned. It is the refusal to acknowledge this that I disagree with - I am not arguing the laws are perfect I assure you.
Posted by attilathepun on 2008 04 16 at 12:03 AM • permalinkGas operated firearm:-
Fires a round at a lower velocity than if the same round was fired from a bolt action.
With the exception of the M14 & M1a Springfield, is less accurate than a bolt action.
Posted by Steve at the pub on 2008 04 16 at 12:12 AM • permalink#94. Richard, the reason I need something that is gas operated is that I have too much free time on my hands. Nothing wastes time like sitting around with a pull thru and some cleaning cloth and a filthy gas regulator.
Posted by mr creosote on 2008 04 16 at 12:13 AM • permalinkIf anyone can provide a valid reason why they need a gas operated weapon, I’m all ears.
OK, you win. I’ll limit myself to recoil-operated machineguns and blowback submachineguns. ;-)
Now that’s a compromise I can live with.
But I want to get in on the restricting-what-others-can-own stuff too, so I’ll have to ask you fellas to give up your scope-sighted, bolt action sniper weapons. You can hunt just as well with an iron-sight lever gun, and if you can’t, you need to get training. Your Carlos Hatchcock fantasies are not sufficient reason to own these dangerous arms. ;-)
Gas operated firearm is easier to operate for elderly\infirm (preferred “soft” targets for intruders)because:-
No fumbling or need for manual dexterity in fingers for reloading.
Little to no recoil impact to the firer.
And in the case of light models, such as the M1-30 Carbine, is easy to produce from a handy storage position & bring to bear in a confined space (eg, in the dark in a bedroom)
Posted by Steve at the pub on 2008 04 16 at 12:28 AM • permalink#103 - Dave, you can take your F1 and stick it as far as I am concerned!
Posted by mr creosote on 2008 04 16 at 01:00 AM • permalinkThere are other periods in history where the peasants were forbidden to own weapons. They had their elite protectors to decide their daily needs for them then too.
That usually worked out very well for those elite protectors. Take what they wanted, when they wanted, from whomever they wanted.
Peasants do deserve no better. That is why free men and women despise both peasants and those who wish to set themselves up as elites.
#107 - as I said, Ferraris are regulated like other cars because the harm they can cause and the risk of that harm occuring is considered similar enough to other cars that more onerous regulation is not required.
Semi-autos are considered more dangerous than single shot, with a greater risk of harm and/or a greater harm resulting so they are more strictly regulated. Why are heavy machine guns more heavily regulated?
Yes, more people die in car accidents than by gun shots. However, the “need” for cars is considered great enough that society tolerates less onerous car regulations. However, if you want to argue for greater licensing requirements for cars compared to our current joke of a system then I am all ears.
Posted by attilathepun on 2008 04 16 at 01:32 AM • permalinkI’m sure that this is not a whacko sort of a concept; I just draw that line at semi/auto assault rifles rather than at RPGs like some others. This opinion is based on a thorough and working knowledge of weapons, gained through 15 years of service to Queen and Country, up to and including shoulder fired anti-armour weapons.
I draw the line at fully automatic weapons myself, except as Federally licensed; I don’t see the need for civilians to compete with the military. Missiles and indirect fire weapons? No way. But I have no problem with any sort of semi-automatic weapon.
And while my service was less arduous than yours (based on things you’ve said in the past), I’ve enough time in exercises, ranges, and training to back that up.
My justification? Besides them being fun (yeah, I know, but “valid” is wide open), I believe in peace through superior fire power, even on the civil side. And, quite frankly, criminals also possess semi-auto and full auto weapons, so I’m kind of short changing myself there.
But if someone passes a law legalizing even full auto weapons, I won’t complain much. Except about the ammo expenses.
Do I expect hordes of criminals to walk through my neighborhood on a bloody rampage? Not really. The chances are low....but the risk is very high if that happens. I prefer to hedge my bets. There’s a strong tradition, at least in the “fly over” part of the US, of exactly that sort of preparedness, going back to 1776, and even earlier. I don’t always favor this approach, but when it comes to raw violence, I must admit that my ancestors lived through some seriously bad times, in part due to firearms, thus the notion of having superior fire power close at hand is very appealing to me.
So if the gang bangers around here get antsy and start popping rounds for fun (sorry again, but that DOES happen, Richard....take a look at LA, where I do NOT live), I prefer to shoot back with something that they will listen to. A bolt action rifle, as lovely as they are, just doesn’t cut it.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2008 04 16 at 01:53 AM • permalink#108 atp
I disagree. Who “needs” a car that can go so fast? Speed kills! Plus it’s illegal to exceed the speed limit, speed cameras save lives, you know. Ferraris are to the family sedan as “assault rifles” are to hunting rifles.
Semi-auto long arms were banned because the nuff-nuffs who drew up the uniform firearm laws said it would be easier to kill multiple people with one than with a bolt action. They (fortunately) forgot about lever- and pump-action rifles, though for some reason included pump-action shotguns on the banned list. Probably from watching too many Hollywood movies.
#111 pjw. Absolutely. The firearm control laws owe more to perceptions gained from Hollywood movies than from any actual knowledge of firearms.
Posted by Steve at the pub on 2008 04 16 at 02:22 AM • permalinkDave, you can take your F1 and stick it as far as I am concerned!
Is that that cool-ass Aussie SMG with the top-mounted magazine? Looks like a cross between a Sterling SMG and a Bren? I’d love to “stick it” in my grubby little mitts.
Hey, Jeff S., full auto weapons are legal in most states, you just need a background check and a $200 transfer tax, IIRC. And no legal owner has ever done wrong with one, so your (admittedly lukewarm) opposition is groundless. Sadly, the government banned all but person-to-person transfers back in ‘86, so no new full-auto weapons are available, meaning the limited pool of legal guns is now fixed so the prices are out of reach for all but the wealthy.
There used to be a big annual full-auto shoot here in Maine. I know many of you will be shocked to hear this, but no one was killed, maimed or raped by any of the hundred or so dangerous machineguns firing tens or thousands of rounds those weekends.
Abu Chowdah.... I don’t recall you as a troll. However, in this instance you are wrong.
It’s an issue over which reasonable men may differ. I respect your opinion.
I prefer to troll people who piss me off, like Barry Bones at BoltA’s site.
Enjoy your submission to the faceless bureaucracy.
You couldn’t be more wrong about me. But I appreciate you don’t have all the facts and are emotionally invested.
hugs
“Abu Chowdah”
Posted by Abu Chowdah on 2008 04 16 at 05:41 AM • permalinkAbu, what’s your rebuttal to Albury Shifton’s point @ #1
I realised that all the mass shootings take place in areas where guns are banned that I wised up.
Howard’s action was in response to an horrific event that occurred in Tasmania. Not a place where it was (then) hard to get your hands on weapons.
I don’t actually have a problem with licensed shooters. I’m not trying to take YOUR guns away.
My point was that gun control is important. It is important. Even a licensed gun owner must appreciate that that is a rolled gold, 100%, a-grade fact. Otherwise the fuck-knuckles being tried in Melbourne at the moment might have actually shot up the Grand Final, hey?
And I say again, anyone who says Howard was an asshole and voted for Rudd because of gun control is so fucking retarded he wouldn’t know the postman was up him until he blew the whistle.
As you were.
Posted by Abu Chowdah on 2008 04 16 at 05:48 AM • permalinkAs I stated before, for plenty of people, when Howard took their guns he had to do without their vote.
On the 24th of November last year he was still doing without those votes.
He quite possibly lost government because of it.
If someone doesn’t like that, they should look up “democracy” in a dictionary.
If someone takes my guns, they will be doing without my vote until such time as I get those guns back.
There are plenty who feel this way.
Their impact is perhaps insignificant.
But on the 24th of November 2007 it would have been enough to save John Howard.
He reaped what he sowed.
Stiff shit.
Posted by Steve at the pub on 2008 04 16 at 06:17 AM • permalinkWell at least you got the PM you wanted and deserved, even if I didn’t.
Hope this helps,
AC
Posted by Abu Chowdah on 2008 04 16 at 06:23 AM • permalink#120 perhaps even consider whether a rational approach would have produced more material good for all sections of society than two successive media-driven bureaucratic kneejerks borne out of ignorance, fear & bigotry, that punished a responsible & law abiding section of the community statistically far less likely to commit violent crime against their fellow Australians than their non-licenced brothers are likely to commit against each other.
Posted by stahlblume on 2008 04 16 at 08:50 AM • permalinkRight, it doesn’t happen often - but when you guys party there’s a bigger mess to clean up.
Posted by Abu Chowdah on 2008 04 16 at 06:24 PM • permalinkerr… Martin Bryant is actually one of ‘you’ guys if that’s what you’re referring to. He may also refer to violent crime as a ‘party’. But that is just an argument - and a damn good one in my mind - why some people should never - repeat never - be allowed anywhere near dangerous tools of any type. Not to ban the tool. Nor to disband the regulatory agencies that allowed - if you will - the situation to come about.
But to get back to the main point, it’s not just guns that licensed recreational shooters are less likely to kill, maim or threaten our fellow man with. Doesn’t matter whether it’s using broken glass, morphine-filled syringes, bricks, bats, fists, knives, volvos or stale hotdogs.Posted by stahlblume on 2008 04 16 at 10:30 PM • permalinkSo we’re in agreement. Glad we could reach consensus.
Posted by Abu Chowdah on 2008 04 17 at 01:31 AM • permalinkHey I’m glad we can too.
Y’know, I think the authorities still do consider primary production a genuine reason for possessing a semi-automatic rifle today. (I’d have to check that.) Semi-automatic handguns hold a valid & recognised place in the sport today.
I personally do believe that there is still a valid argument within recreational shooting for responsible private ownership of semi-auto longarms in Australia. There are many disciplines within the sport. The unsuitability of their application in some disciplines & fields does not necessarily preclude their application in others.
Self-defence has never been a genuine reason to own a firearm in recent years; it is not now. To put it forward in the present Australian context as an argument either for or against ownership of classes of weapon only serves to muddy the present debate.
And as far as full-auto goes, since military weapons were referred to earlier on in the thread, there is also a set of valid arguments for private possession under the broad aegis of historical/technical collecting. This was the case until quite recently, under a commissioner’s permit (with the proviso of permanent deactivation.) I think that consideration of storage & security arrangements, rarity, historical & monetary value should have been been taken into account regarding a permanent demill on a case by case basis, & there should have been some discretionary leeway, but they didn’t…
You will find that shooters overwhelmingly support the notion that some people just do not & should never ever mix with firearms ...& that more stringent penalties should apply to anybody who uses them in the commission of crime. Some parts of the legislative regime governing firearms ownership are overly restrictive, indeed punitive. Australian sporting shooters are all too aware that it is the wrong strata of society being affected by these provisions & it has little real effect on the people intended.
Posted by stahlblume on 2008 04 17 at 11:26 AM • permalinkI must say that some of the restrictions are quite stupid. For example if you want to get yourself a mid 1800’s era jezzail to hang on your wall you have to get the barrel blocked and file off the hammer and so on - ruining it as an authentic piece. I’ve seen many in Saudi that I would have loved to own but the thought of having to go through that process just throws cold water on the deal.
I have a friend who scored a beauty in Afghanistan, but he threw it under a tarp on a Herc with all of the SAS’s other toys and Customs never knew about it. Did I just say that? Whoops.
Posted by Abu Chowdah on 2008 04 17 at 04:46 PM • permalinkPrecisemont Abu. Obsolete calibres & non-metallic cartridge antiques have been sucked into the bureaucratic craw. The nonsensical 30 day cooling off periods applying to each firearm when the licence holder already owns firearms. Grey legal areas in transport & storage. Parts of the AVO sections are just plain punishing & silly. Set against a nationwide backdrop where time & time again criminals who intentionally commit intentional violent crime with or without a weapon leave victims dead & maimed, their families shattered are dealt with by a legal system that lacks the political will to hold them properly accountable.
Jezzailis are a little outside of my area of interest so I can’t commment but I do know some Yanks who’ve been bringing back those antique Afghani ‘Khyber Pass’ copies of Brit muskets. Pretty nice little piece of history… like the jezzail you’d be silly to try firing them but. It buggers me why they need to be deact’d..
Posted by stahlblume on 2008 04 17 at 11:44 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
One of the big black spots on Howard’s otherwise benign reign. Although at the time, I was in the “WTF’s the matter with these gun nuts, FFS??” camp. It was when I realised that all the mass shootings take place in areas where guns are banned that I wised up.