GUN LAWS TIGHTER, GUN CRIMES UP

In Sydney, only outlaws have guns:

Crime in the NSW capital is on the way up for the first time in six years – with a 71 per cent increase in gun crime in parts of western Sydney.

More laws might help. No; wait. We’ve already banned almost everything with a trigger. How the hell is this happening?

Posted by Tim B. on 11/27/2006 at 10:34 PM
    1. It is happening Tim because guns are not banned under Sharia law.

      Posted by Phatso Phil on 2006 11 27 at 10:40 PM • permalink

 

    1. Perhaps Professor Lott could ehlp clear things up.

      Posted by 68W40 on 2006 11 27 at 10:42 PM • permalink

 

    1. Ah, yes, gun control laws…..an oxymoron in both name and concept.

      Except, of course, when gun control is defined as having a firm grip on your weapon.  😉

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 11 27 at 10:48 PM • permalink

 

    1. #1.Phatso Phil.Spot on! But not only are they not banned under Sharia law they are apparently not banned under NSW law if you happen to be a member of the Middle Eastern criminal set.You may recall the assembly of Middle Eastern criminals at Punchbowl Park last December at which Glock pistols were displayed as the weapon of choice.Police were present but were specifically instructed by their bosses “not to antagonise them”.Subsequently forty carloads of armed criminals were effectively provided with a Police escort to travel to Cronulla and Maroubra so that they could carry out their “revenge” attacks.Because of their Labor Party affiliations these vermin have rightfully regarded themselves as untouchable for the last ten years and I see no signs of that changing.The political handwringing that’s going on at the moment will only last until the March Election.

      Posted by Lew on 2006 11 27 at 11:01 PM • permalink

 

    1. ’Gun Control is a firm grip and perfect sight alignment’

      Posted by The_Wizard_of_WOZ on 2006 11 27 at 11:01 PM • permalink

 

    1. The worst elements of Australian Society are armed to the teeth.

      What’s the point of having ANY Gun Laws?

      Someone please explain ??!!!

      Strange that if you are a Criminal or a member of our Social Elite then you are extremely unlikely to ever be charged with a firearms offence.  Remember Kerry Packer and the Glock stolen from his desk?

      However, if you are a peasant who stashes a gun away for a rainy day and you get caught.  Then your likely to be up for 10 years.

      Australia couldn’t get any more stupid about guns…….. or could it?

      Posted by rickw on 2006 11 27 at 11:03 PM • permalink

 

    1. Ban criminals!!!

      Oh, wait …

      Posted by TimT on 2006 11 27 at 11:04 PM • permalink

 

    1. The latest Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research figures, released today, reveal that Inner Sydney, the Inner West, Blacktown and Canterbury have become hot spots where robberies are increasing dramtically.

      Mr Moroney today blamed ice – and the young people dependent on it – for the increase in violent crime.

      Sydney has hot spots where ice is to blame? Good Lord, is nowhere safe from the effects of global warming?

      Posted by splice on 2006 11 27 at 11:09 PM • permalink

 

    1. Could be worse. Luckily most of these appearanceless wannabe’s learnt to shoot from hip hop videos. It’s a good thing they don’t have Saturday matinees of westerns on TV anymore, or they might actually hit something.

      Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2006 11 27 at 11:09 PM • permalink

 

    1. If you want to keep people from being shot, why make guns illegal? Why not just make it illegal to shoot people? Seems like there’s an unnecessary layer there.

      Posted by Dave S. on 2006 11 27 at 11:14 PM • permalink

 

    1. Sure, only the bad guys and and the cops have guns in Oz right now.

      I can accept that in a society that is already awash with guns, it might be safer to have one yourself.

      But I find it really hard to believe that gun crime (and more importantly, gun death of innocents) in Australia would decline or even stay the same, if we were to significantly relax our gun laws tommorrow.

      Can someone explain how this would work ?

      Posted by closeapproximation on 2006 11 27 at 11:16 PM • permalink

 

    1. A few places in the states are going in a completely different direction and requiring households to keep firearms.

      In at least one of these locales that I read about, the result was a precipitous drop in crime.  And why?  Because the criminal scum were too scared shitless to wander into anybody’s home but their own.

      Posted by Mark V. on 2006 11 27 at 11:16 PM • permalink

 

    1. Well put Infidel Tiger,
      But what annoys me, is that law abiding Australians were coerced into handing their weapons in because of a nutter in Tasmania, and political point scoring, and lefty media imput, while because of poliical correctness, certain ethnic minority gangs have a free range.

      Posted by BJM on 2006 11 27 at 11:19 PM • permalink

 

    1. When our Police Commissioner says that the cause is “ice” and “we risk losing a whole generation” nobody calls him on it except Don Weatherburn who wants more information.  Blaming “ice” is a convenient way to imply to the NSW public that it could well be their kids who are carrying guns after all they too are part of the “lost generation”.

      Criminals have always sought to have guns and they always will seek to have the highest level of firepower available. That is the nature of what they do.  While some will indeed use them most of them have guns for the purpose of intimidation (and since by law and definition in Australia they are the only ones with them, it works).

      Our Commissioner is wrong on many counts and not the least is that we know that most teenagers do not and will not use “ice” and the vast majority will not be lost to its effects.  Cleaning up gun related crime by criminals is about cutting off supply (nothing to do with laws more to do with enforcement) and catching and punishing them.  Unfortunately, effective action in this area involves “profiling” which is definitely not pc.

      Posted by allan on 2006 11 27 at 11:19 PM • permalink

 

    1. There is a direct correlation between ‘hot entry’ (a criminal entering a property while it is occupied) and gun control. In the UK, where guns are banned, hot entry is much more common than in the US where criminals are much more careful to case a house ensuring nobody is home before entering.

      In the cases of hot entry in the UK and Australia we now have the situation where the criminal has a gun and the home owner has a butter knife.

      As they say in the US, a gun society is a polite society,

      Posted by Jack Lacton on 2006 11 27 at 11:20 PM • permalink

 

    1. Shouldn’t there be shootouts every night in country towns across Australia? Most farmer’s own heaps of guns and you’re a damn sight safer walking down the main street of Barndance and Black Stump than Lakemba or Northbridge.

      Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2006 11 27 at 11:27 PM • permalink

 

    1. Gun control is a form of socialism. It enables the have-nots to share in the benefits of capital by carrying same right out the front door in broad daylight. As for myself, I am a radical capitalist; a have-not entering my house when I am home is likely to depart as a have-even-less.

      Posted by paco on 2006 11 27 at 11:41 PM • permalink

 

    1. #15 crime has fashions.  “Hot entry” happens in Australia but it is not the fashion that it is in the UK.  Mostly guns here are used in armed robbery.  Partly this is because in the UK there is a much higher level (anecdotally at least) of saleable “gadgets”.  In Australia due largely to the better weather than the UK people spend more time out of doors and less time acquiring the many neat things available.  Robbing the average Australian home will get you a DVD and a mobile phone. Not much in that.

      Posted by allan on 2006 11 28 at 12:01 AM • permalink

 

    1. Gun control can certainly be a very emotional topic on this here particular blog… :o)

      I wonder if the lefties out there are as perplexed at the level of feelings it somtimes ignites, as we sometimes are by how “over the top” they go with their global warmening frenzy???

      Posted by casanova on 2006 11 28 at 12:01 AM • permalink

 

    1. Those pesky utes of no appearance in certain suburbs of Sinny are not the only ones packing heat.

      The lebslads down Williamstown/Altona way also have a right tendency to bear arms.

      Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2006 11 28 at 12:24 AM • permalink

 

    1. #4

      You may recall the assembly of Middle Eastern criminals at Punchbowl Park last December at which Glock pistols were displayed as the weapon of choice.

      Didn’t you read the article?

      CRIME in the NSW capital is on the way up for the first time in six years – with a 71 per cent increase in gun crime in parts of western Sydney.

      And it is being driven by the drug ice, according to Police Commissioner Ken Moroney.

      Listen to The Commissioner. It was the Ice I telly you. The Ice! Clearly Lakemba Mosque is just an Ice factory and all the Lebanese-Muslims were Ice addicts (except the dealers).

      Posted by Dan Lewis on 2006 11 28 at 12:31 AM • permalink

 

    1. The USA has free and easy gun laws, and a lot of gun-related crime, school massacres, accidental shootings etc. Australia has restrictive gun laws, and bugger all gun crime and very infrequent school massacre or saccidental shootings. Go figure.

      All this ice. Won’t global warming solve that problem?

      Posted by geojoe on 2006 11 28 at 12:35 AM • permalink

 

    1. I can’t remember the specifics offhand, but the numbers show that school shootings we don’t have a ‘lot of’.  The ones that do happen get enough publicity to make it sound like an everyday thing.  And wasn’t it a nice European country with all kinds of disarmament laws that had that nasty school incident last week?

      And if restrictive gun laws prevent all those things, why has the numbers of gun-involved crimes gone up so much in Britain?  And a lot of other places?

      Posted by Firehand on 2006 11 28 at 12:51 AM • permalink

 

    1. #21

      No, no, no. The ice factory is at Punchbowl, on Canterbury Road, down near the Sundowner pub.

      Posted by kae on 2006 11 28 at 12:51 AM • permalink

 

    1. Gun control can certainly be a very emotional topic on this here particular blog… :o)

      It’s emotional anywhere you go, casanova.

      The bottom line for me:  If someone doesn’t want to own a weapon, that’s fine by me.  But don’t lump responsible gun owners in with criminals, idiots, and fools by treating said responsible gun owners as criminals, idiots, and fools.  This is what most gun control laws tend to do.  Not all, but most.

      And that’s hardly gun control….which generally fails to work.  That saying:

      ’Gun Control is a firm grip and perfect sight alignment’

      is not just a humorous quip; it’s a literal truth.  People trained to handle weapons properly (including securing them) is a far far better means of gun control that banning their ownership.  Or by placing such draconian restrictions on their ownership and use such that using them in an effective manner for self-defense comes down to being a crime unto itself.

      We can argue the ins and outs of what type of weapons should be legal, but I fail to see why a home owner anywhere shouldn’t have the right to keep a weapon (say, a revolver or shotgun) for self-defence.

      Unless there’s a police office stationed full time on your street, of course.  If you want things that way.  I don’t.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 11 28 at 12:52 AM • permalink

 

    1. #11 closeapproximation—it’s hard to answer your question when you introduce a pair of bald-faced lies into the very basis of it, but I’ll try. It’s a human vs. animal thing.

      Animals eat when there’s food, and go hungry otherwise. With rare exceptions they don’t do anything to cause food to appear.

      Humans have tools. Using those tools, we make food appear where none was before, and eat whenever we please.

      The big ape beats up the smaller ones (often enough to take their food). That’s how it works among animals. It’s purely a matter of native strength—they don’t even go to the gym.

      If 100 kilograms of athletic male wants something from 40 kilos of female, the outcome really isn’t in doubt, is it? It’s a case of big ape vs. little one. Just like animals.

      But humans have tools. Guns are tools for violence. If forty-kilo Sheila has a gun, it’s a bit less likely that she’s going to have to give in automatically or get hammered. Of course, the bloke can get a gun, too—but there’s no way he can get and carry a gun that will give him as much advantage over armed-Sheila as he had when both were disarmed. Sheila’s still at less of a disadvantage.

      And she can do things—get training, learn to use the tool properly, get a better tool. So can he, but the maximum limit is when the tools they use and their respective skills completely overshadow their physical strength. In that case they become as nearly equal as can be in terms of advantage in violence. And if she does, and he doesn’t—likely, in the case of criminals—she can actually gain the advantage, and have nothing to fear.

      If the big animal wants food, it can go beat up on the little one (or eat it) without fear. If the big bloke wants sex, there is nothing preventing him from going and getting some. Therefore, in many cases he will do so. There is no downside for him—unless Sheila has the means to resist. At that point he has to at least consider it, weighing the possible damage to himself against the benefit of getting his rocks off. That is, instead of pure animal appetites we introduce human qualities—planning, weighing alternatives, rationality. A vote for gun control is a vote for the Law of the Jungle: the strong oppress the weak in proportion to their relative strengths. Supporting gun ownership is a vote for civilization, because guns make the weak stronger but do not make the strong stronger in the same proportion.

      The main lie you repeated was the parenthetical about innocents dying. In a society of animals, the innocent die because they have a morsel, or a sex organ, that the strong want. Yes, innocents die in gun accidents. Look at it this way: a medium handgun is about 5 kW of power. How many innocents die in accidents with the 100+ kW bludgeons we call “automobiles”? Would getting rid of cars make us all freer? If you say “yes”, keep in mind that there is no record of a society making that decision and sticking to it. There are plenty of examples of Maximum Leaders making sure such benefits accrue only to themselves, though.

      Civilization, especially Western civilization, is a matter of individuals getting more power. That power can come from the electric utility as well as, and probably more easily than, from political association, and it’s still power. A gun is five to twenty kW of power to deal with violence. It’s not a separate category, despite your shivers.

      Regards,
      Ric

      Posted by Ric Locke on 2006 11 28 at 12:55 AM • permalink

 

    1. #24 Oh, now I get it, Kae.  Not ice… ICE (Islamic Community Enclave). I never was much good with those fancy police radio codes.

      ~crackle~ “We have a 10-47 in progress, suspect is on foot in Lakemba ICE, westbound on Canterbury Road, believed armed. Request backup, over.” ~crackle~

      Posted by splice on 2006 11 28 at 12:59 AM • permalink

 

    1. When home invasion with guns starts to become frequent enought to actually worry about, then I’d think about arming myself with a gun.

      In the meantime, let’s not arm Aussie suburbia; it doesn’t need to be armed and won’t become safer this way.

      Nilknarf, what’s the story on gun gangs in Williamstown/Altona. I want to know more….

      Posted by closeapproximation on 2006 11 28 at 01:00 AM • permalink

 

    1. Wow.  I think I must be on ice.  Get on a gun control thread and I can’t tell who’s a RWDB and who’s a moonbat.

      Posted by anthony_r on 2006 11 28 at 01:04 AM • permalink

 

    1. geojoe, Switzerland is up to its hips in guns and they have very little gun crime. The New Guinea highlands were mind-numbingly violent for 40,000 years without a gun in sight. Culture is a factor in this. All other things being equal—including the local culture—if you ensure that the criminals are better armed than the law-abiding types, violent crime will increase, because you’ve made murder a safe hobby. I understand that that’s precisely the goal, but not everyone shares your goals.

      When you tighten gun laws in a given locality, violent crime tends to increase. When you loosen them, it tends to diminish. This is exhaustively documented. Gun control does not correlate with reduction in violent crime, full stop. It does correlate reasonably well with the opposite.

      The real issue here, of course, is that some people are simply eunuchs who get a kind of sick thrill out of subservience and helplessness. Have fun with that, if it turns you on, but don’t try to force me to join in.

      Posted by Don’t Bogart that Midget, Comrade! on 2006 11 28 at 01:05 AM • permalink

 

    1. Gun ownership means that there will be more gun deaths. This is another of the beautiful consequences of gun ownership; criminals tend to get shot.

      Naturally enough if someone breaks into your house and you own a gun, you have the choice to shoot them. Personally I would rather make this choice than wait like a Frenchman for a cop to come and assist me.

      Crime statistics also show that violent crime is on the rise in almost all disarmed societies, but on a remarkable downward trend in the US. You can either put this down to abortion (as some have) or you can put it down to an empowered citizenship and police force who aren’t prepared to put up with scum.

      Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2006 11 28 at 01:06 AM • permalink

 

    1. I have said it before on this blog: the right to own a gun in Australia will not help victims unless they have a right to use it in self defence.  There is no right of self defence in Australian law.  There is a doctrine of “appropriate response”.  It this case if the 40 kilo sheila shot the aggressor she would be charged with manslaughter and be looking at 10 years prison time.  We need guns AND the right to self defence.

      Posted by allan on 2006 11 28 at 01:07 AM • permalink

 

    1. #26, Rick

      You’ve just described all that is fucked up about third-world hellholes.

      Western civilisation has, well, a civilising influence to help us do better than our base aniimal instincts.

      I take your point about the “democratising” value of a powerful gun. Actually, that reminds me of one of the good counterarguments to gun control in 1996; farmer’s wifes alone on remote properties actually had a chance of saving themselves from a gang of rapists if she were skilled with an automatic weapon. I agree.

      The suburbs of Melbourne are a different matter.
      If the state completely fails me and my family in providing security, then yes, I need a gun.  But if it gets to that, I call that a failure.

      Posted by closeapproximation on 2006 11 28 at 01:10 AM • permalink

 

    1. In the meantime, let’s not arm Aussie suburbia; it doesn’t need to be armed and won’t become safer this way.

      That’s the way that you feel, closeapproximation.  What about the suburban resident who doesn’t feel that way, and is willing to be a responsible gun owner?  More to the point, what if that person has a genuine need for self defense, based on experiences that you lack?

      And waiting until “home invasion with guns starts to become frequent enought to actually worry about” might just be a bit late, y’know.  It’s rather like checking the smoke alarm batteries before running out of a burning house.

      Just my thoughts.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 11 28 at 01:14 AM • permalink

 

    1. Jeff, I reckon one bad experience would probably make me want to be better protected. You are right when you say that I speak from personal experience, and I have never experienced a home invasion. I could imagine wanting a gun if I felt sufficiently unsafe.

      On the other hand, I don’t trust my 19 year old hothead neighbour to store a gun safely, or to make sure it doesn’t get stolen and then used against me by an opportunistic crack addict, or that his 6 year old step-brother won’t find it and play with it. And so it goes on….solve one problem, create another.

      Clearly, most people on this comment feel that the benefit is greater that the risk…

      Posted by closeapproximation on 2006 11 28 at 01:26 AM • permalink

 

    1. In the meantime, let’s not arm Aussie suburbia; it doesn’t need to be armed and won’t become safer this way.

      I think #34 nailed it.
      This isn’t about whether or not we should be arming Australian society. It is about whether a law-abiding citizen, who has never and would never hurt anyone with malicious intent, should be treated as a criminal, particularly when the criminals don’t even obey those laws.

      That’s the issue.

      Posted by Dan Lewis on 2006 11 28 at 01:34 AM • permalink

 

    1. #15&32 Appropriate response my behind.  If you used that butterknife on an armed intruder, they would still treat YOU as the criminal.

      Posted by EvilK on 2006 11 28 at 01:35 AM • permalink

 

    1. this is way OT but gateway pundit, flooping aces and others have learned that Assoc Press have been using bogus “sources” for Iraq reports. ie Captains and LTC’s that DO NOT exist

      http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/

      Posted by the nailgun on 2006 11 28 at 01:45 AM • permalink

 

    1. 32. There is no right of self defence in Australian law.

      Wrong. There is.

      What you may have it confused with, is that the gun laws specify self protection is not a legal reason to be issued a gun licence.  They also specify storage requirements that make self defense a very slow business – but if you can get it out in time it appropriately, you have the right to self defense.

      Posted by ChrisPer on 2006 11 28 at 01:46 AM • permalink

 

    1. I meant “ but if you can get it out in time and use it appropriately, you have the right to self defense. “

      Sorry – PIMF

      Posted by ChrisPer on 2006 11 28 at 01:48 AM • permalink

 

    1. ahh that’s flopping aces NOT flooping aces
      Sorry

      Posted by the nailgun on 2006 11 28 at 01:49 AM • permalink

 

    1. #39 So does that mean if someone breaks into my house with a knife I can give him both barrels, laugh, reload and then give him some more…And I won’t get into trouble?

      Posted by EvilK on 2006 11 28 at 01:53 AM • permalink

 

    1. It’s more a matter of individual liberty than a dire need for self defence- what right does some hack politician have to tell me I’m too drunk and irresponsible to be allowed to control a weapon (he may be right)?

      As long as you take responsibility along with the right, it’s no-one else’s bloody business. Agree with the right to self defence as well- in Beattiegrad now, you can be banged up for keeping a ball bat under or beside your bed, for fucks sake.

      Personally, I now keep a compound bow and a rather nice old samurai sword handy in the house, and an AR15 bayonet in the bedroom; never had a break in, but no point waiting for it to happen. If I could be arsed, I’d jump through the requisite hoops to get a new weapons licence (held one for 20 years before this last bollocks) and get a nice 30.06 lever action- the dolts who drafted this legislation didn’t realise that a well operated lever can knoch through rounds as fast as a semi-auto; not as effectiive as a chokeless riotgun or a .357 S&W with a 7” barrel* for close quarters (especially if loaded with Glasers- messy), but it’d do the biz.

      *Still got this little number, but it’s now required to be locked up at the pistol club- a fat lot of good when some ner’do well climbs in the window at 3AM and trips over the 2 unconcious watch dogs.

      Posted by Habib on 2006 11 28 at 01:53 AM • permalink

 

    1. closeapproximation.

      – Why does anyone have a right to dictate my self defence choices?

      The stupid thing about Gun Control is that it seems that we need to go through the cycle of being disarmed.  Finding out that it sucks.  Then demand back our right to self defence and a right to bear arms.

      Things are so bad in the UK that arms for self defence is really starting to get some traction.  Why not short circuit all this misery?

      PNG is they very epitomy of Gun Control at work.  The crims have all kinds of gear ranging from stolen M16’s through to guns made from water pipe.  The productive members of society couldn’t get a gun if their lives depended on it (which it does).

      So they get robbed and killed with merry abandon.  Law of the Jungle driving a society in totally the wrong direction courtesy of Gun Control.

      Posted by rickw on 2006 11 28 at 01:53 AM • permalink

 

    1. #33 CA, yes, I understand. You want something for nothing, or for very little. History suggests that what you will actually get is nothing, or very little, for a lot.

      “The state” is an abstraction. It can neither fail you nor help you, because it is you. You have to do your own bit, for yourself and your neighbors, and claiming “I pay my taxes!” or “I vote!” is nowhere near enough. You can’t buy it, and it is contemptible to believe you can. Freedom, prosperity, comfort, and safety are not things you can order in and hand your credit card to the delivery person, then turn away and complain because it wasn’t prompt enough.

      We are lucky, you and I. We live in societies descending from the English one, and the English made the remarkable discovery that mutual aid made everyone richer and safer. As we can see in the news every day, that was a unique and counterintuitive innovation. There aren’t many places in the world that believe that, or even understand it.

      People are animals, too. We all have the same drives an animal has, and one of those is the desire to be herd leader, Alpha, the Big Chief. Throughout the eons the Alpha got the pick of the food and mates, and the trait was therefore conserved, in greater or lesser degree depending on the individual. It’s still with us today. Unfortunately it doesn’t correlate with intelligence. Why should it? It’s purely an animal trait.

      Society provides different outlets for the instinct. A person who wants, for sound evolutionary reasons, to be Big Chief can become a politician or an executive or a “celebrity”. But stupid people can have the drive, too, and if they happen to be physically strong as well, they will express the trait by preying on the weaker, having no other outlet. We call the result “criminals”.

      If criminals observe no effective opposition to their activities, their instincts are rewarded and they will increase their behaviors, which are gratifying not just because it gets them wide-screen TVs and cash for trips to the boozer, but because enforcing their will is an outlet for Alpha instinct. Others, who perhaps have less of the instinct, see it successfully applied and seek their own gratification. Criminality grows.

      No matter how hard you try or how carefully you arrange things, the system of mutual assistance pioneered by Englishmen of yore breaks down eventually. This is especially true if you try to set up a special corps whose only purpose is to do the aiding. By the natural course of events, membership in the corps of helpers is a magnet for people with Big Dog tendencies. You are stuck between a rock and a hard place. If you filter strongly to keep out the Big Dogs, your corps will have to remain small—not enough people with the right traits available. If you don’t, it eventually becomes indistinguishable from “criminals”. The only possible solution, if you want to preserve the mutual self-help system, is for everybody to do their part, including maintaining means for effectively resisting criminals.

      The suburbs of Melbourne are a pretty nice place (yes, I’ve been there.) But if people with Alpha instinct, who are all around, get the idea that they can exhibit that trait with impunity or little chance of damage to themselves, they will do so. The police can do them damage afterward, but by the nature of their charge they cannot set things up so that the Big Dogs see a downside to expressing their instincts. If they could, they’d be Big Dogs themselves and just as dangerous as the “criminals”.

      So the only way to preserve our society is for you and your neighbors to present themselves as a danger to people attempting to display their Alpha qualities. It’s a human thing, resisting the Alphas. As a human thing, it is best done with tools. If you present yourself as a cringing Beta, you encourage the Alphas to prey on you. Assuring the Alpha-wannabe that you have no effective means to resist is a good way to do that.

      Regards,
      Ric

      Posted by Ric Locke on 2006 11 28 at 01:54 AM • permalink

 

    1. On the other hand, I don’t trust my 19 year old hothead neighbour to store a gun safely, or to make sure it doesn’t get stolen and then used against me by an opportunistic crack addict, or that his 6 year old step-brother won’t find it and play with it. And so it goes on….solve one problem, create another.

      That tends to be the way of life, closeapproximation.  I see this everyday.  I don’t see that as a reason to do nothing, though, which is exactly your position.

      And let me point out, howsoever gently, that if your neighbor wanted a weapon, I am certain that he could buy one.  Those laws simply do not work.  It’s a cold comfort knowing that he’ll be going to jail for shooting you dead.  Assuming the judge didn’t see the guy as a victim of his childhood, or whatever.  Deterrence works better than punishment, especially for the real victim.

      So you miss a key point:  In spite of “tight” gun control laws, criminals still have guns.  Read that article again!  Your idiot neighbor is the least of your problems.

      And, again, you are lumping responsible gun owners in with idiots.  As a responsible gun owner (even if I am on another continent), I do not appreciate that.

      ‘Nuff said.  People either accept weapons, or they reject them.  It’s difficult to get people to cross over from anti to pro gun….until they realize they should have had one.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 11 28 at 01:56 AM • permalink

 

    1. I reckon one bad experience would probably make me want to be better protected.

      CA, you’re right. I’ve been mugged once and had my house burgled on three occasions. It changes your mind about a lot of things.

      Posted by Art Vandelay on 2006 11 28 at 02:00 AM • permalink

 

    1. I’ve been burgled as well.  No mugging to date.  But being a victim certainly changes your perceptions considerably.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 11 28 at 02:02 AM • permalink

 

    1. Cherry Tree, soon to be as polite as Green Leaf.

      Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2006 11 28 at 02:05 AM • permalink

 

    1. #33-

      The suburbs of Melbourne are a different matter. If the state completely fails me and my family in providing security, then yes, I need a gun.  But if it gets to that, I call that a failure.

      And where do you propose to get a gun after the failure of the state?

      Posted by Andrew on 2006 11 28 at 02:07 AM • permalink

 

    1. And for the record, about one Australian household in 20 owns a gun of some kind legally.

      Used to be about one in 10, 25 years ago.

      The media overblow the home invasion thing.  Most of the ones in our papers involve drug debts.  Even before the gun laws most of us didn’t much need a home defense gun.  Nevertheless, there are plenty of dead or nearly dead Australians who could have been saved if there was someone ready to deter a killer.  Some even had police cameras fitted on there homes, so well acknowledged was the danger – but better you die than have a gun license for protection.

      Posted by ChrisPer on 2006 11 28 at 02:13 AM • permalink

 

    1. #39 and 40.  I agree that self defence can be used as a defence in law but it is not a right.  A right would be guaranteed by the constitution or a Bill of Rights. Australia does not have a Bill of Rights and there is no Constitutional mention of self defence.

      The catch, as you admit in your amendment in #40 is the appropriateness.  I am personally acquainted with several cases where users of legally owned guns, even in the past, faced manslaughter charges.  In each of those cases the plea was that the owner had made the shot as a warning.  In one case of a hotel owner who shot at criminals robbing his hotel, he was forced to pay damages to the thieves (although he did not have to go to jail as he was, it turned out “firing a warning shot”).

      Posted by allan on 2006 11 28 at 02:29 AM • permalink

 

    1. #50

      And where do you propose to get a gun after the failure of the state?

      Punchbowl.

      When do you propose to declare NSW is a failed state?

      Posted by Dan Lewis on 2006 11 28 at 03:03 AM • permalink

 

    1. We can argue the ins and outs of what type of weapons should be legal, but I fail to see why a home owner anywhere shouldn’t have the right to keep a weapon (say, a revolver or shotgun) for self-defence. 
      Thing is Jeff here in Oz despite the outcries, you can own a shottie and a lever action rifle (as I do) and I’m applying for my H category pistol licence shortly. Then I’ll pick up an old 9mm Browning semi auto for under $150.
      All these I can keep at home locked up.
      So long as you play the game and have no serious criminal history any Aussie can get a weapons licence.
      No big deal.

      Posted by 81Alpha on 2006 11 28 at 03:06 AM • permalink

 

    1. I don’t know about Oz, 81Alpha, although I keep on hearing different answers about various locations to that question.

      However, that is clearly not the case here in the USA.  In some places, gun ownership is fairly loose.  In other places, forget it; gun ownership is either highly restricted or flat out illegal.  You can usually tell how “blue” an area is by their attitudes towards responsible, armed citizens.

      Is the same true of Australia?

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 11 28 at 03:17 AM • permalink

 

    1. “GUN LAWS TIGHTER, GUN CRIMES UP”

      Yeah, that’s the way it works.  In both the US and the UK there have been thousands of gun control laws passed over the last century or so, and the homicide rates are much higher than they were when both contries had little or no gun control.

      Go figure.

      Posted by Dave Surls on 2006 11 28 at 03:21 AM • permalink

 

    1. Better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it.

      Responsible and law abiding citizens in Australia are allowed by law to own a wide variety of firearms.
      You may have to jump through hoops at the bidding of your “betters” to get a permit, but if you really want to, you can have as many legal guns as you like.

      I think some of the “don’t arm suburbia” commenters would be very surprised at the number of legal firearms in their neighbour’s houses.

      Especially in Queensland.

      Posted by Pedro the Ignorant on 2006 11 28 at 03:26 AM • permalink

 

    1. #54 81Alpha – I agree entirely.. play through the bureaucracy game & have a relatively clean sheet, it’s not that hard to get some form of firearm.

      And about all this “the criminals have guns”. The issue isn’t so much that criminals have guns – by definition, if you’ve got a gun & haven’t jumped through the hoops then you are a criminal – the issue is what sort of criminals have guns.

      in my experience, the most heavily armed criminals i’ve known (mainly amphetamine dealers) are relatively sensible with their weapons and have them predominantly for self protection and, to a lesser degree, intimidation factor (cos they can’t call the cops).

      the problem with ‘criminals’ is vastly more the dickhead wannabe hard man street thug who manages to get his hands on one pissy little automatic – and they’re always the hardest to restrain/control in any society, irrespective of what your gun laws are, because they’re self-eliminating darwinism looking for a place to happen.

      Posted by pache on 2006 11 28 at 03:53 AM • permalink

 

    1. I might put a little cat among the pigeons here.
      I have dealt with a couple of firearm offences sitting as a magistrate. While not being a “hanging judge” The prople involved have recieved middling fines.
      If you qualify for a firearm it is not hard to keep it. Pay your liscense and dont be a dickhead with it (at least not where others can see) and the police leave you pretty much alone.
      However when you possess unliscenced firearm or ammunition you have made a fairly deliberate decision to try and hide the fact. As it is not hugely hard to possess a firearms liscense why “conceal” the fact you have one?
      For the record I lost my pissant rifle (22 semi) during the gun confiscation after the tasmanian knobhead went berko. I was grossly offended at being lumped into some sort of “undesirable” catogory just by virtue of owning a rifle.
      if you want a pistol join a gun club. If you want a rifle, do the same. Then use it at the gun club, a person unfamiliar with a weapon is fairly hazardous to everyone including themselves.
      it is a pain having to buy a gun safe, some of them are more than a cheap rifle.

      Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 11 28 at 04:29 AM • permalink

 

    1. To put another perspective on things, if anyone would like to buy a cheap gun cabinet, I have one in our store room…

      My mum’s 2nd hubbie was having a few psychological problems, depression etc and was able to go buy a 22. mag rifle and ended up shooting himself in the head with it..

      Mum walked in and found him, that wasn’t such a nice experience… 3 years later I’m still trying to figure out what to do with it, so if anyone wants to put in an offer???

      In my teens I owned a 22 semi auto, bought a 50 round mag for it coz the 10 round mag wasn’t big enough…

      So I guess I can see both sides of the story…

      Posted by casanova on 2006 11 28 at 05:04 AM • permalink

 

    1. I blame “the men of no appearance”

      They’re location specific
      They hate us
      and Morris will make sure that Ice is to blame.

      Posted by gubbaboy on 2006 11 28 at 05:53 AM • permalink

 

    1. Across NSW armed robbery is stable for the period in question.

      The figures presented represent 17 additional armed robberies for this little area (on a baseline of 24 armed robberies for the previous 12 month period).

      Break and enter offenses across NSW are down for the 12 month period.

      This doesn’t suggest to me a structural problem with the Australian gun laws or presence or absence of a Bill of Rights, but rather a problem with that particular area.

      Posted by Patrick Caldon on 2006 11 28 at 06:15 AM • permalink

 

    1. “You’re as cold as ice, you’re willing to sacrifice our love. You never take advice, someday you’ll pay the price I know….”

      Foreigner always got it right.

      Posted by The Best Infidel on 2006 11 28 at 06:22 AM • permalink

 

    1. ChrisPer, yer damn right – if you can get it out in time to use it. I’ve whinged it before and I’ll whinge it again – my chances of getting the keys out of the bedside drawer, unlocking the gun cabinet in the wardrobe, getting out my .22 peashooter, climbing on a stool and unlocking the ammo box, getting out some ammo and loading the rifle – all in the dark so as not to alert the scumbag – and being ready in time for him/her wandering into the bedroom are zero. That’s why I keep a billy club under the bed – and even that is illegal under Queensland law.

      BTW closeapproximation, you’re only one mugging away from becoming a grown-up.

      — Nick

      Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2006 11 28 at 06:26 AM • permalink

 

    1. I’m not sure but there appears to be a sentiment here that Middle Eastern men come from a culture of gun use and violence and are more than willing to use guns in violent activity against unprotected Aussies.  Oh, there’s no evidence of that.  They’re as innocent and nonviolent as little kuola bears.  This is utter slander I say.

      Posted by wronwright on 2006 11 28 at 06:44 AM • permalink

 

    1. The UK bans all guns (pretty much) and violent crime sky-rockets. Do the socialists and wet-Tories see a link? No, of course not because its society’s fault.

      Posted by Andrew Ian Dodge on 2006 11 28 at 06:48 AM • permalink

 

    1. Party drug called Ice. Ice must be all right as it is a party drug. Now how could a party drug cause crime? Unless the MSM is wrong and Ice is not a harmless past time. Now guns have been available in Australia since the First Fleet, but then use of a gun in a crime meant death on a gallows. Now only means a slap on the wrist. The crims are of course terrified of Uncle Ken Moron. So why is there more gun crime? Any suggestions?

      Posted by stackja1945 on 2006 11 28 at 07:10 AM • permalink

 

    1. SHHHHHH!  Don’t tell anyone, but I’ve heard that criminals don’t obey the law.

      Posted by Rob Read on 2006 11 28 at 07:50 AM • permalink

 

    1. #60 Casanova, you do not need a gun for suicide. Down this way the most common methods are hanging [why i do not know]and carbon monoxide .
      Firearms are very common in rural Oz. After the Buy Back blokes just replaced their semi-autos with db shotties and repeating rifles. The firearm traders did big business.

      Posted by Paulm on 2006 11 28 at 08:17 AM • permalink

 

    1. The brain surgeons who drafted the idiot legislaltion here had an uncunny understanding of firearms- ban all semi-autos and pump actions, allow lever actions; ban handguns over .37 cal, so you can’t have a .38 that wouldn’t blow out a candle, but you can have a .357 magnum or a Glock that holds 10 in the clip and one up the spout; what an unmitigated cluster fuck.

      And you wouldn’t believe the customs legislation that accompanies it- unmounted projectiles get more scrutiny than a Colombian with a cocaine colostomy, yet they’re lumps of copper and lead that are only lethal in their current state if you eat them.

      No wonder so many people went feral and dug holes in their back yard when this hysterical over-reaction was introduced. If you went around Gympie with a metal detector you’d think you’d hit the mother lode.

      Posted by Habib on 2006 11 28 at 08:31 AM • permalink

 

    1. It’s good PR for a politician to boast “We got 100 000 guns of our streets”.

      It’s also much, much easier than getting even a handful of criminals off the streets.

      Going after law-abiding citizens is a pretty pissweak way to do law-enforcement.

      Posted by Dan Lewis on 2006 11 28 at 08:39 AM • permalink

 

    1. Not Community, Colony.
      ICE (Islamic Colony Enclave)

      Posted by Rob Read on 2006 11 28 at 08:46 AM • permalink

 

    1. My wife and I are both responsible gun owners. And I must unfortunately admit that my wife is a much better shot with a handgun than I am. Three years ago while I was on my 1st deployment to Iraq, a man attempted to break in through the back door of our apartment in Kansas late one night.  Our little dog barking didn’t frighten him away, but the distinct sound of her Colt 9mm’s slide slamming forward did.  The man decided that whatever he was intending to do to my wife wasn’t worth it and hauled ass.  closeapproximation, suppose that was your loved one and without the handgun?
      I grew up in Texas (surprise!), and most everyone owns at least one firearm.  It isn’t perfect; we still have plenty of crime but just knowing that practically everyone is armed absolutely stands as a deterrent.  If a criminal KNOWS you are waiting inside your home with a weapon, he’s moving on in search of the low hanging fruit.

      Posted by Texas Bob on 2006 11 28 at 09:08 AM • permalink

 

    1. “GUN LAWS TIGHTER, GUN CRIMES UP”? No, gun-law tightness has been the same for many years now. It’s only recently that gun-crime has increased and then only in some areas as mentioned. Easing up on gun-control laws won’t reduce these types of crimes. It’s the uneven application of the law that is the problem here.

      Posted by Observer on 2006 11 28 at 11:17 AM • permalink

 

    1. “Shoot! With the bullets! That’s what they’re for, you twit!”
      — Group Captain Lionel Mandrake

      Posted by mojo on 2006 11 28 at 11:38 AM • permalink

 

    1. ban handguns over .37 cal, so you can’t have a .38 that wouldn’t blow out a candle, but you can have a .357 magnum

      Considering the true diameter of a .38 is .357, that’s PROFOUNDLY goofy.

      Posted by Dave S. on 2006 11 28 at 12:33 PM • permalink

 

    1. To address the issue of children who accidentally shoot themselves by playing with guns:

      I grew up in a society (Texas) where nearly every home had at least one gun.  Most of my parents’ acquaintances owned gun cabinets stocked with several of them.  We children were taught how to handle guns safely and never to touch them unless an adult was present, i.e., respect for the weapon.  We all learned very early in life that a gun is not a plaything.

      Of course you can’t eliminate accidents or stupidity, but it’s been my observation that the child who accidentally shoots himself or another child is one who has never been allowed to handle guns, satisfy his curiosity about them, and learn the proper respect for what they can do.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 11 28 at 12:41 PM • permalink

 

    1. Hmmm.

      @ closeapproximation

      No offense but you do realise that police are largely incapable of preventing crime right?  That police officers are generally there to enforce the laws *after* a crime has been committed right?

      So here’s your choice:

      1. You have a pistol or shotgun and defend yourself/family from attacker(s).

      Police come by and pick up the dead bodies, take your statement and you sit down and drink some whisky to settle your nerves.

      2. You don’t have a pistol or shotgun and cannot defend yourself/family from attacker(s).

      Police come by and pick up *your* dead body.

      What part of this is difficult to understand?  Not trying to be offensive or anything but I really don’t get what anybody thinks the local police have any ability to prevent crime.

      Posted by memomachine on 2006 11 28 at 12:55 PM • permalink

 

    1. Hmmm.

      Children and shootings.

      Frankly a lot of problems stem from people who have firearms for self-defense but who don’t actually go through the proper steps to actually accomplish this.

      Instead they “hide” the firearms in a closet in the mistaken impression that their kids won’t find them.  They keep the ammunition stuffed in the back of a drawer in another room.  And they never talk about any of it to their kids.

      Oh and they never clean those firearms either.  :/

      The problem is that kids will treat everything as a toy unless they’re shown otherwise.  And hoping that a child won’t find the family’s shotgun in the closet is just plain foolish.  Kids are fully able to recognize when something is dangerous, they just need to be informed about it beforehand.

      Posted by memomachine on 2006 11 28 at 01:00 PM • permalink

 

    1. #79 ed, I agree. We taught our children weapons safety at a very young age.  They were all made aware of what each of our different weapons were capable of doing, and quickly learned to respect these capabilities.  We taught them proper handling techniques, the purpose of muzzle orientation, how to aim and fire.  My kids respected our weapons because we taught them so. Gun safes are fine to secure your valuable gun collection, but aren’t practical for storing a defense weapon. The last thing you’re are going to have time to do when you wake up at 3am because your wife heard an intruder downstairs is to make your way to the gun safe and attempt to get it open.  Training and education are what make the difference.  If you have an unstable family member in your home, then you’ve got bigger problems than whether or not to own a handgun.

      Posted by Texas Bob on 2006 11 28 at 02:31 PM • permalink

 

    1. Ed, Texas Bob, I concur as well.  Education makes for safer weapons.  Every gun accident involving children that I ever heard of or read about was due solely to their lack of respect for and knowledge of firearms.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 11 28 at 03:50 PM • permalink

 

    1. There are so many holes in the various (long) arguments posted here by Ric and Jeffs that I nominate them jointly for presindency of the Crochet Club.

      All I’m hearing here is about “responsible” gun owners and so on.  You can count on the fingers of one hand (damn, I forgot the thing was loaded …  the stumps of your arm) the number of people who have never breached the rules.  Just because you say you’re a responsible gun owner, doesn’t make it so.  All Ric’s psychobabble about animal instincts and all the rest is, when you come down to it, a reminder that we’re not machines.  We’re subject to forgetfullness, carelessness, emotional outbursts, egotism and all the other endearing human traits.  We’re better off if such flawed characters don’t have the means to deliver instant death (btw, Ric, your statement that “A gun is five to twenty kW of power to deal with violence.” exactly illustrates my point.  A gun is a way of delivering violence, not dealing with it!)

      So you don’t have a gun, and the criminal does.  So you don’t speed recklessly, and the shmock in the car overtaking you does.  What’s the solution – you put your foot to the floor and overtake him back, or improve the laws, and the policing/legal systems, to make it unprofitable for the other guy to carry a gun, or drive like a maniac.

      Posted by rampisadmukerjee on 2006 11 28 at 04:52 PM • permalink

 

    1. We’re subject to forgetfullness, carelessness, emotional outbursts, egotism and all the other endearing human traits.

      [snip]

      So you don’t have a gun, and the criminal does.  So you don’t speed recklessly, and the shmock in the car overtaking you does.  What’s the solution – you put your foot to the floor and overtake him back, or improve the laws, and the policing/legal systems, to make it unprofitable for the other guy to carry a gun, or drive like a maniac. 

      If people are so subject to those “…endearing human traits…”, you must be one brave person to walk on a sidewalk.  Or, God forbid, drive on the roads with other people at the wheel.

      Given your extreme distrust of humanity, would you agree to everyone having a personal bodyguard, paid for by the government?  Perhaps police officers on every street corner?  I mean, with people in general being so dangerous and all, surely you want those “policing/legal systems” to be as effective as possible.  Controls must be postive and firm, yes?  After all, people are so inherently incapable of taking care of themselves, they will hurt someone, sometime, someplace.

      If that’s what you truly want, maybe you should move to, oh, perhaps a police state, rampisadmukerjee?  I hear North Korea is looking for a few good people.

      OK, yeah, I am taking your argument to the extremes.  But your comments are so full of holes that they look like they were hit with a couple dozen shotguns blasts.

      Your basic premise, “People aren’t trustworthy”, is valid but incomplete.  I prefer “Don’t trust untrained people; trained people can earn trust”.  I also believe of being able taking care of myself, and I do not expect other people to wipe my hiney.

      Indeed, I should be capable of taking care of myself, so that others who can’t get that assistance.

      I could go on with other bit and pieces about redundancy, accounting for failure, training by repetition, and so on, but you are such a people hater, and so emotional on this topic, that I won’t bother.

      Instead, I will simply point out that your argument is based on fear and distrust of people, inherent laziness (clearly, you are the sort of person who wants his hand held), and an inability to properly assess risk.  And, oh yeah, a deep fear of something that you don’t understand: firearms.

      My argument is based on the inherent weaknesses of people, my faith in their strengths (which there are aplenty), and a belief in my ability to take care of myself.  And solid training in firearms.

      Oh, yeah, I am fully aware that I could screw up and kill someone accidently.  Or myself.  I am FULLY aware of that, rampisadmukerjee.  It scares the crap out of me, but I deal with it.  A little fact that you, in all your emotional responses, will never understand.

      Man, do I feel sorry for you, living the way that you do.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 11 28 at 05:39 PM • permalink

 

    1. The_Real_JeffS:

      Also, a lot of the distrust people have of other people owning guns is based on projection. I wouldn’t be surprised if rampisadmukerjee is basing his presumptions about gun owners upon what he thinks he’d be like if he owned one of those icky firearms.

      Posted by Patrick Chester on 2006 11 28 at 06:28 PM • permalink

 

    1. #82: Ram(etc.)

      In January of last year, sometime in the late morning hours of the first, I believe, two thugs broke into a house in Richmond, Virginia, bound the husband, wife and their two daughters (aged 4 and 8), tortured them and then cut their throats. They made off with electronic equipment valued at something under $200. I do not believe that the homeowners had a gun in the house. And it is quite possible that, if they did, it might not have made a difference; a number of factors might have prevented them from putting a weapon to good advantage. But it seems to me that not having a gun reduced whatever odds they may have had to nearly zero. There are people – and I include myself in their number – who are not willing to run the risk of becoming criminal statistics in their own home, while waiting for “better” laws, or more “efficient” police protection. The police are not really here to defend us in our own homes; they’re here to try to catch the guys who have harmed us after the fact – and when that fact happens to be murder, then the victim isn’t much altered by the outcome of a police investigation. There are genuine, soul-dead animals out there who will kill you for little or no reason. Guns may only be a way of treating the symptoms of social disease, but since the symptoms alone can get you killed, I’d say it’s a good thing to defend against them.

      Posted by paco on 2006 11 28 at 06:37 PM • permalink

 

    1. The police are not really here to defend us in our own homes; they’re here to try to catch the guys who have harmed us after the fact – and when that fact happens to be murder, then the victim isn’t much altered by the outcome of a police investigation.

      Thank you for making that point, paco.  The police are a deterrent to crime only if they can arrive in time.  Even if you have an alarm system that calls the police, you still have to survive until they arrive.  Criminals count on that fact.

      People feel “safe” when the police are around.  But the police aren’t always around, hence my semi-sarcastic comment about cops on every corner.  Police may be just a phone call away, but someone has to make that phone call…..and then the police still have to respond.

      I dunno, about the only way to make people like rampisadmukerjee happy is to put mind control necklaces on everyone, and dance in the daisies all day long, hand in hand with our fellow humans.  “Naive” doesn’t begin to describe this sort of thinking.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 11 28 at 07:00 PM • permalink

 

    1. Also, a lot of the distrust people have of other people owning guns is based on projection.

      Good point, Patrick.  Someone who has no trust in people probably has low self-esteem, and limited self-confidence.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 11 28 at 07:07 PM • permalink

 

    1. There are obviously many commenters here who are confident and comfortable with their fireams and do not see gun ownership by other law abiding citizens as “scary” . It would be a good bet to to say that most of these would be either ex military or police, where firearm safety and familiarity is drummed in until it is second nature.

      It is not that many years ago the the sight of a man or boy carrying a shotgun or .22 rifle down the street in an Australian country town was a common sight, and never raised a comment.
      Repeat that stroll down the street today, and there would be helicopters full of black clad armoured police swooping, and screaming headlines about “Armed Lunatic Terrorises Town”.
      We have been trained to fear guns and see them as objects of evil.
      It is pointless arguing the toss with anti gunners, like Glowball Warmening, the facts are irrelevant and statistics will alway be found somewhere to support their fear and loathing.

      Posted by Pedro the Ignorant on 2006 11 28 at 07:15 PM • permalink

 

    1. We Many people have been trained to fear guns and see them as objects of evil.

      Aside from that one correction, Pedro, the comment is spot on.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 11 28 at 07:21 PM • permalink

 

    1. When I was a boy in 50’s Sydney my father and several of my uncles had guns.  My father taught me gun safety at an early age.  They had all come back from WWII and still had a connection to rural living even though we mostly lived in suburbia.  Having a gun didn’t prevent burglary as the burglars came when we were out of the house.  The changes came some time in the 70’s when something happened to the magistrates in Australia and all of a sudden the criminals had more rights than citizens in a conflict.

      It may simply have been that we had more lawyers.  That’s it, I think I have it. The problem is lawyers!

      Posted by allan on 2006 11 28 at 07:44 PM • permalink

 

    1. Shoot the lawyers?? (I wish)

      The comment about “police are only usefull after the fact” rings very true. I often find myself defending violence restraining orders (usualy a relationship breakup, with the threat to a partner by another. Not to approach etc.) with a question.
      “Who did she (usualy a woman, just the way it is) tell of the order?” The point being if she told no-one else in the street to keep an eye out for the bloke, then its a bit late when he busts down the door at 3.00 in the morning.
      The “shame” of the relationship breakup seems to short circut the logical step of telling the old gossip (you know the one who watches everything in the street) to call the police if they see Joe Blogs whom the order refers to.
      Whenever I see a case where a woman has been killed by an enstranged partner it allways seems to be family members who know, but the people who live next door, or in the street dont.
      Just stupidity.

      Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 11 28 at 08:19 PM • permalink

 

    1. #68 – Perhaps it’s possible that some – mind you, some, not all – criminals lack scruples.

      Posted by Steve Skubinna on 2006 11 28 at 08:28 PM • permalink

 

    1. #92: Well, then, why don’t they go out and steal some?

      Posted by paco on 2006 11 28 at 09:05 PM • permalink

 

    1. But I find it really hard to believe that gun crime (and more importantly, gun death of innocents) in Australia would decline or even stay the same, if we were to significantly relax our gun laws tommorrow.

      Can someone explain how this would work ?

      Because here in the States, the big tough bad guys tend to avoid communities where the citizens might shoot back…

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 11 28 at 09:25 PM • permalink

 

    1. Amen, Richard.  Enactment of “Make My Day” laws in various jurisdictions in the US (mine was one of the first) notably reduced home burglaries; it wasn’t a matter of hordes of criminals wearing it at the hands of law-enabled homeowners, so much as it was that those hordes concluding that their risks had just skyrocketed and deciding that other forms of criminal enterprise might be a better bet.  Concealed carry laws tend to have the same effect, BTW.  See, risk analysis isn’t just for actuaries any more …

      Posted by Celaeno on 2006 11 28 at 10:06 PM • permalink

 

    1. We’ve already banned almost everything with a trigger.

      Along with a boatload of other non-firearm items. I remeber seeing a lot of them illustrated on a poster in a CityRail station someplace and thinking that just about everything that could be considered to have value as weaponry was covered by one kind of ban or another.

      Posted by Bashir Gemayel on 2006 11 29 at 01:33 AM • permalink

 

    1. well, “The police are not really here to defend us in our own homes” is not true.  The fact that they may not be doing that is a failure of society.  You have been watching too much old detective TV, drumming into your head the idea that that’s all a good police force does.  Deterrance and prevention are very much part of the copper’s beat.

      See, Allan tells it right … “The changes came some time in the 70’s when something happened to the magistrates in Australia and all of a sudden the criminals had more rights than citizens in a conflict.” The problem is not that there’s too few guns, but that our society has lost the plot.  And here’s the thing – we can change that, without killing anyone in the process.

      There’s clearly a virus infecting responders to my posting, causing acute short-sightedness. I said human beings aren’t perfect, and I got back that Ric thinks he is.  He’s the last person in the world I’d want to have a gun – over-confidant, self-inflated, egotistical, always right, never wrong.  You don’t have to actually do anything wrong for him to pull the gun, he just has to think that you are.  Do us all a favour, carry a marshmallow.

      Posted by rampisadmukerjee on 2006 11 29 at 01:34 AM • permalink

 

    1. Did you mean Ric or me, rampisadmukerjee?  He didn’t reply to your post here, while I did, but he might e-mailed you.

      Or it might be that us forgetful, careless, emotional, and egotistical human beings all look the same to you.  Because the paint brush that you’re using hasn’t touched you, eh?

      Either that, or that short-sightedness virus hopped from your hand onto the computer, and hence to this blog.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 11 29 at 02:10 AM • permalink

 

    1. #97 rampi sez: The fact that they may not be doing that is a failure of society.

      Damn that society anyhow. We need a law against society failure. That’ll fix it.

      Posted by Texas Bob on 2006 11 29 at 02:22 AM • permalink

 

    1. Jeff

      You’re right, I mixed up who was talking, and that’s exactly my point.  People make mistakes.  I can apologize to Ric for making that error, I couldn’t plug the holes in his head if I’d made a mistake with a gun in my hand.

      Posted by rampisadmukerjee on 2006 11 29 at 02:25 AM • permalink

 

    1. #100 – Not exactly sure if you should use or own cutlery either. You seem to lack a few simple motor and cognitive skills.

      Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2006 11 29 at 02:31 AM • permalink

 

    1. rampisadmukerjee, the biggest problem I have with your posts is your naivity.

      “Deterrance and prevention are very much part of the copper’s beat” is true enough.  But just how effective is that beat?  100%?  Can’t be, what with the crimes being committed.  I won’t accept totally ineffective (0%), as competent police forces can provide some protection…..if they are allowed to.  But they clearly aren’t 100% effective.

      Mow, I have confidence in the abilities of the police, from personal experience.  But that same personal experience tells me not to totally rely on them…..in large part because I know that they can’t be 100% effective.

      Yet you place a child-like faith in the police to protect you, no matter what, in spite of that.  This is touching, but not in touch in reality.  Methinks that you are the one immersed in TV reruns of old police dramas, where the cops saved the day in the last 5 minutes.

      If there’s a problem with violent people, you want to pass a law.  Check the law books, there are plenty there.  Doesn’t seem to deter the criminals, though, but you still like the idea.

      In all honesty, I do see your position….having held it once myself.  I simply do not accept it anymore, based on personal experience, and observations of the world about us.

      And as for apologizing to Rick in case you blew a hole in him, any fool knows that’s a cold comfort to the corpse.  In fact, that’s a point made clearly in firearms training…….in order to emphasize weapons safety.

      You consistently and pointedly ignore as even possible the idea that responsibile gun owners can and do exist….or be trained up to that standard, because all humans are imperfect and untrustworthy.

      (I find that attitude very odd, by the way.  By that standards, the police shouldn’t carry guns.  Do they carry weapons in your part of the world?  If so, do you get worried when the police drive by?  Coppers have been known to shoot the wrong people, y’know.)

      As long as you view firearms with fear and loathing, any discussion on this topic with you is pointless.  You’ll just continue with your emotional responses, ad nauseum.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 11 29 at 03:17 AM • permalink

 

    1. Tiger’s got it right.  I’m clearly an idiot, since I have the temerity to disagree with him and his co-religionists (they belong to the Holy Alliance of Righteous Pricks In Endless Selfabuse, or “HARPIES”).

      I knew when I was posting my original piece that no-one would attack my arguments, only me.  Believe it or not, I have owned a gun when I lived in what is now the most violent society on earth.  Fat lot of good all those guns are doing those I left behind, getting killed at the 3 times the rate of the worst in USA. After 20 years in Australia, I now live in the country with the highest level of gun possession (not ownership) in the world, and hardly anyone gets shot.  That’s because the people holding the guns here have had a minimum of 3 years full-time training, they know what they’re doing, and they know that they will be come down on like a ton of bricks if they lose, misplace, discharge (even point without proper reason) or in any way abuse their privilege.  All of which goes to prove my exact point, that society can be made to play it’s part.  All I hear from Jeff tells me that he’s living in the jungle, not in the middle of x million other people and that’s not the place for anyone to be holding his finger on a trigger.

      Note the use of the word privilege, not right.  So far, all the supporters of private ownership have been telling me is that it’s their “right to bear arms” (a gross misunderstanding of the US Constitution, but what do I know) and nothing about duties.

      Now until “free” societies like Australia and US can achieve a similar level of competence, then yes, private ownership of guns is a menace.  Achieve a similar level of responsibility (draft everyone into the army for 3 years and make that appreciated as a bonus, not a penalty) and them come back to me in 20 years and ask for a gun again.

      Posted by rampisadmukerjee on 2006 11 29 at 03:46 AM • permalink

 

    1. “private ownership of guns is a menace.”

      That’s the general idea, all right.  I don’t keep weapons so as to not be menacing (obviously).

      Posted by Dave Surls on 2006 11 29 at 04:06 AM • permalink

 

    1. …and gosh, rampisadmukerjee follows a familiar pattern I first saw when I was reading talk.politics.guns. Oh dear, people don’t agree with you, point out the flaws in your reasoning so they’re just attacking you!

      Posted by Patrick Chester on 2006 11 29 at 04:30 AM • permalink

 

    1. Jeffs

      “If there’s a problem with violent people, you want to pass a law.” Did I say such a thing?  If there’s problem, first enforce the laws you already have.  If they’re inadequate, after giving it a good trial, THEN change the law.  The problem so far has been that governments pass the laws, then when they don’t work (because nobody implements them) they pass some other laws, which nobody will implement.  When is the last time criminals got the maximum sentence, rather than the minimum.  I’m an extremist in one direction (society must uphold the law), you’re an extremist in the other direction (you think you ARE the law).  Until I know you a whole lot better, pardon my skepticism.

      Posted by rampisadmukerjee on 2006 11 29 at 04:35 AM • permalink

 

    1. #103 – Rampisadmukerjee, I don’t think you’re an idiot at all.

      I do however think out gun laws are idiotic in Australia. Law abiding citizens have been denied a privilege on the basis of a most spurious argument. The gun buy back and restrictions have had no influence at all on reducing gun crime. They have however proved a hinderance to sporting shooters, collectors and people who like to shoot skyward when their football team wins.

      I am also a firm believer in relying as little as possible upon the state for anything, including protection. They can do their part and I’ll do mine.

      Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2006 11 29 at 04:40 AM • permalink

 

    1. Tiger

      Welcome to the club of one.

      I’ll confess I don’t know much about the gun laws in Aussie since I lost interest in the subject when I was told when immigrating that I couldn’t bring mine with me – and I’ve never regretted that!

      As for not relying on the state for protection, can I guess you live in a nice safe country like Australia.  Try somewhere that has a real problem, and then see how much you can do to “protect” yourself.  Tell the truth, SFA!  If it makes you feel better to think you’ll die with a gun in your hand, good luck, mate.  And the point is what’s going to keep Australia safe isn’t you, Jeffs and Ric with your peashooters, but a government commited to upholding the law, and an electorate prepared to give them the necessary muscle.  IOW, society.

      Posted by rampisadmukerjee on 2006 11 29 at 05:19 AM • permalink

 

    1. Gosh this is tiresome.

      Posted by Texas Bob on 2006 11 29 at 05:27 AM • permalink

 

    1. TB.  Please post a picture of some-one holding a gun to your head, forcing you to read the tiresome stuff.

      Go ahead, make my day!

      Posted by rampisadmukerjee on 2006 11 29 at 05:45 AM • permalink

 

    1. sigh
      Sorry rampi, can’t help you there. None of my Aussie friends are allowed to own one any longer.

      Posted by Texas Bob on 2006 11 29 at 06:01 AM • permalink

 

    1. And please excuse my vagueness. What I really mean is that YOU are tiresome.

      Posted by Texas Bob on 2006 11 29 at 06:05 AM • permalink

 

    1. here we are, boring each other to death.  bring back guns … much quicker solution.

      Aussie’s aren’t ALLOWED to own guns?  but why does that matter.  nobody obeys the law there, is what they’re saying. law is a ass (sic not allowed here).  law is a idiot.  i’ll look after myself.  if i say i need a gun, i’ll have a gun.  the crims have them, and the law doesn’t stop them, so why shouldn’t i have one, they can’t stop me.

      that was my 6 year-old grandson talking, back there.

      Posted by rampisadmukerjee on 2006 11 29 at 06:15 AM • permalink

 

    1. If there’s a problem with violent people, you want to pass a law.” Did I say such a thing?

      That’s what I read here:

      What’s the solution – you put your foot to the floor and overtake him back, or improve the laws, and the policing/legal systems, to make it unprofitable for the other guy to carry a gun, or drive like a maniac.

      Did I read that wrong?

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 11 29 at 10:35 AM • permalink

 

    1. Infidel Tiger @ #107:

      I am also a firm believer in relying as little as possible upon the state for anything, including protection. They can do their part and I’ll do mine.

      rampisadmukerjee @ #108:

      Welcome to the club of one. 

      That club has a larger membership than you think.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 11 29 at 10:40 AM • permalink

 

    1. here we are, boring each other to death.  bring back guns … much quicker solution.

      You aren’t boring me to death, rampisadmukerjee, as you are proving my points very nicely, thankyouverymuch.  Do keep up the good work.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 11 29 at 10:44 AM • permalink

 

    1. And before I forget, rampisadmukerjee:

      I’m an extremist in one direction (society must uphold the law), you’re an extremist in the other direction (you think you ARE the law). 

      Please point out in this thread (or anywhere, for that matter) where I ever said that I am the law.  Or that I would disregard the law.  Or some variation of that meme thereof.

      I really am curious.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 11 29 at 10:49 AM • permalink

 

    1. 117. TRJS, sounds like rampi totes the stereotypical gun-hating response: responsible gun owner=cowboy gunslinger=gun nut.  If I’d ever cared to listen and adhere to the gun hater’s philosophy my wife would be raped, dead or both.  The police are by far and wide professionals, but in the time it takes to respond to a call (if you even have the time to make that call) the deed is usually done and over with. I didn’t want to gamble my bride or children’s safety then and I won’t start now.  I sincerely hope rampi never faces an experience where he’ll have to live with the If only I’d… regrets.

      Posted by Texas Bob on 2006 11 29 at 11:04 AM • permalink

 

    1. Hmmmm.

      @ ampisadmukerjee

      Ok this really needs to be nipped right in the bud and right the hell now.

      well, “The police are not really here to defend us in our own homes” is not true.  The fact that they may not be doing that is a failure of society. …

      Here in the USA, and I’m willing to bet in Australia too, the police do NOT have a legal requirement to defend you.  Got that?  The police are not legally bound to defend you.

      If a cop is sitting in a car and sees an armed nutcase walk up to you, put a gun to your head, rob you and then fire two bullets into your skull and does nothing about it, the cop is not legally liable for doing nothing.

      In fact this very scenario has happened.

      In fact one reason why the Los Angeles Riots were so bad was because the LAPD *withdrew* back into their police stations and left the populace to their fate.

      So I’d suggest you do a little research.  Perhaps in your locale there is a positive legal requirement for police officers to prevent crime irrespective of any potential danger to themselves.  But in most, if not all, juristdictions I’m aware of, at least in the USA, if a police officer feels that getting involved would put that officer in danger then there is no legal requirement that they get involved.

      So if you’re going to rely on this, then I’d suggest making certain that what you think is so, is in fact so.

      Posted by memomachine on 2006 11 29 at 11:17 AM • permalink

 

    1. Hmmmm.

      Another point I’d like to make is that many “home security” companies have an over reliance on local police as a response for any alarms.  What then happens is that the excessive number of tripped alarms, mostly due to mistakes by homeowners, causes the local police forces to then make it a policy to *not respond to any home alarms*.

      So depending on home alarm systems isn’t the panacea that a lot of people think they are.

      In addition, with the example of the UK, extensive home security systems coupled with draconian anti-gun laws means that it’s a lot harder to break into homes but conversely a lot easier to rob people at gunpoint.

      Which means that the most efficient and effective means of robbing a home is to do so when there are people present.  And the most efficient process is one where the perp knocks, in disguise, on the door and then shoots the person opening that door in the head, killing that person.

      Then they proceed to invade the home, rob it and kill everyone else in the house to eliminate witnesses.

      Which is why there are relatively few home invasions here in the USA compared to the UK because here, if you try it on the wrong house, you’ll get a face full of dead.

      Posted by memomachine on 2006 11 29 at 11:23 AM • permalink

 

  1. Hmmmm.

    @ rampisadmukerjee

    If they’re inadequate, after giving it a good trial, THEN change the law.  The problem so far has been that governments pass the laws, then when they don’t work (because nobody implements them) they pass some other laws, which nobody will implement.

    This is exactly the point.  The very point that you keep on missing even though a half-dozen people have tried to point it out again and again to you.

    Enforcement of a law or passing of new laws is irrelevant because you, the victim, will still be dead.

    And that there is no law possible that will prevent crimes from happening.  Even if the punishment for any infraction is death, there will always be someone who thinks that it won’t apply to them or who acts in the passion of the moment.  So that person may be caught and then executed at a later point.

    But you’ll still be dead.

    And perhaps they’ll ref