Election in Australia -- Howard and Latham on guns


PDA






TimLambert
September 28, 2004, 03:11 PM
Prime Minister John Howard (Interview on 2GB 17 Apr 02: (listen (http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/downloads/Howardonguns.mp3) )
we will find any means we can to further restrict them because I hate guns. I don’t think people should have guns unless they’re police or in the military or in the security industry. There is no earthly reason for people to have … ordinary citizens should not have weapons. We do not want the American disease imported into Australia.”
(Via John Tingle (http://www.shootersparty.org.au/News.htm) .)
Mark Latham, Leader of the Opposition (letter to the Shooters Party):
In conjunction with its State colleagues, Labor will work with sporting and recreational shooting organisations to control the criminal use of firearms without adversely affecting legitimate sporting and recreational shooters.
I strongly disagree with Howard and agree with Latham here. I think law-abiding sporting and recreational shooters should be allowed to have guns and banning such ordinary citizens from having weapons is wrong. Howard is also the architect of the 1996 gun ban which I have already said was bad policy. Now I had already decided to support Latham over Howard because of other issues, but it’s still nice to be supporting the party with the better policy on firearms issues.
John Tingle, MLC for the Shooters Party writes (http://www.shootersparty.org.au/JT%20Newsletter%207%20Sep%2004.pdf):
In my opinion, it’s hard to believe we could be any worse off under Latham than we are under Howard, and, because I’m an optimist, I believe from my conversation with him and from the letter, and from frequent contact I had with him in my radio days, that if he becomes the next Prime Minister, a very real and present threat will be lifted from Australia s LAFO’s [Law Abiding Firearm Owners].
Some shooters are running candidates (http://www.shootersparty.org.au/Election%202004%20SSAA%20mailout.pdf) in the election to oppose Howard.

If you enjoyed reading about "Election in Australia -- Howard and Latham on guns" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Poodleshooter
September 28, 2004, 03:15 PM
Learn from us in the states. Make sure that your voters unite under ONE party,even if it's only incrementally better. When you're a minority viewpoint, unity is everything.

Bartholomew Roberts
September 28, 2004, 03:56 PM
But I thought this was just about "reasonable gun control" and that nobody really wanted to ban guns...:confused:

Jim K
September 28, 2004, 04:04 PM
The gun control people want "reasonable gun control" the same way Hitler wanted "reasonable Jew control". And their "final solution" will be death camps for anyone who ever owned a gun.

Jim

jefnvk
September 28, 2004, 04:41 PM
we will find any means we can to further restrict them because I hate guns. So, Australian politicians can ban what they want because they don't like it?

And their "final solution" will be death camps for anyone who ever owned a gun. You would have thought they would pick a group that wouldn't fight back, wouldn't you?

tulsamal
September 28, 2004, 04:54 PM
You would have thought they would pick a group that wouldn't fight back, wouldn't you?

I've seen photos of the mountains of guns the Aussies turned in. I would say they guessed right in the amount of opposition they would face. They were moving those collector grade guns with scoops and dozers!

Gregg

mountainclmbr
September 29, 2004, 10:32 PM
Many sheep down under, aye bloke?

P95Carry
September 29, 2004, 10:46 PM
Well, I guess Howard (bletch! :barf: ) could be at least called up front .... ''I hate guns''!:rolleyes:

His approach tho is so narrow, whereas at least Latham makes the distinction re criminals. Oh for some real logical decsion making ..... instead of gut driven rhetoric. I feel for you guys down under.

I point out my prime sig line ..

Standing Wolf
September 29, 2004, 11:35 PM
The gun control people want "reasonable gun control" the same way Hitler wanted "reasonable Jew control".

Same philosophical principles. Same moral standards. Same general methods. Same old socialism.

Bruce in West Oz
September 30, 2004, 05:00 AM
Frankly, I wouldn't trust Latham as far as I can kick Howard! The ALP has always had a platform of disarmament as part of its (socialist/communist) policy.

So, Australian politicians can ban what they want because they don't like it?

Basically, yes. Both the government and the opposition joined forces to pass the firearms bans and new legislation virtually unopposed.

The Federal government has NO control over firearms; that's given exclusively to the States in our Constitution. So the PM simply blackmailed the States into compliance -- if they didn't comply, he would withhold literally billions in Federal funds, which would have gone close to shutting down the States. They gave in.

As to individual compliance -- don't forget, most of us already had full registration of our firearms -- the police (and any other authority) already knew who had what and where. Under those circumstances, there's little chance for withholding. In those States without registration, turn-in rates are estimated to be, at best, 20-25%. So not all of us are sheep.

In Australia, there is no single, nationwide party that offers support for gun ownership. Even the two main minority parties, the Greens and Democrats, are dedicated to the total disarmament of Australia -- including the police and, ultimately, the armed forces (no, I'm not joking).:fire:

Bruce

SAG0282
September 30, 2004, 05:23 AM
Haha, the American disease??? Of falling crime rates, as opposed to Austrailia's increasing rate of gun crime??


THAT disease!

Byron Quick
September 30, 2004, 05:28 AM
Bruce,

When it's time to bury your guns...it's time to dig them up.

I feel for you people. I pray for all of the English speaking peoples. I'm afraid that most of them have let the opportunity to fight back pass them by.

Here in the US we haven't let that final opportunity pass us by though we have let far too many pass by. I'm still trying to understand why people didn't rebel here in 1914-1916. Story of the frog being slowly boiled I suppose.

The position that only the military and the police should have firearms is the position of wannabe tyrants or their wannabe henchmen. That might no even know they are such. That doesn't change the fact.

RobW
September 30, 2004, 11:49 AM
Poor Aussies! Additional you have Kerry's sister there to mess up things even more. Perhaps you'll have Old Puple Heart at your shores after he lost the election here. Not a comfortable thought.

I feel very bad for you because you are on a fast path to tyranny, a reminder that "Democracy" only works for a limited time, tyranny can survive infinitely. Just ask the history of mankind.

F4GIB
September 30, 2004, 07:03 PM
Meet the real (anti-gun) Mr. Tim Lambert.
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/archive/

I don't know what he's doing here but it can't be good for gun ownership.

Bruce in West Oz
September 30, 2004, 10:04 PM
F4GIB

Thanks for the heads-up.

I knew I recognised that damn name from somewhere! I just couldn't place it! Thanks for bringing it to light.

Also look at his other website: http://www.timlambert.org

Common decency prevents me from saying what I really feel. :cuss: :fire:

TimLambert
September 30, 2004, 10:51 PM
To Bruce in West Oz: "bringing it to light"? I post under my real name, with a link to my web site (that's the www button on each post) and folks hiding behind pseudonyms have the gall to imply that I'm trying to hide something?

To F4GIB: How does consistently opposing Howard's gun laws make me "anti-gun"? Well?

agricola
October 1, 2004, 03:34 AM
Well, its nice to know that the ad hominem is alive and well on this board despite my less frequent visits nowadays.

F4GIB / Bruce, a clear and honest look at his website doesnt reveal much about whether he is pro or anti-gun; he is however clearly anti-BS with skills far beyond mine to demonstrate very simply why some of those your side champions are undeserving of that respect. As an example, the recent attacks on Lott for instance should cause people (if they werent doing it already that is) to seriously question the man's practices and his ethics.

As I have tried to show in my own way here and on TFL for the past two years, the vast majority of what passes for "informed opinion" on the (from my point of view) UK firearms / rights issue consists of so much rubbish that even an amateur like myself can demonstrate within five minutes from first reading the article exactly what is wrong with the piece. This should cause the readers to question it, but it rarely does, as we all know.

Byron Quick
October 1, 2004, 03:55 AM
Mr. Lambert,

Ah, yes, the anonymity of the internet. Had a man accuse me on TFL of hiding behind that cloak. My name and location was on my responding post. It's been there ever since on every board I frequent and on every email address I have.

No pseudonym here. Real name. Real location. I'm in the phone book. Come to call.



I'm not up on the statistics and such. These are really immaterial to me.

Twenty years or so ago, I was attacked by a man wielding a sledge hammer handle. I moved rearward diagonally to get off his line of attack.
While doing so, I was sweeping my jacket to reach my FN Highpower. Realizing that I was in the midst of preparing to kill his sorry butt; he released the hickory sledge hammer handle. Wonder if he would have done so if I had just said please?

The gun I carried was legally owned and legally carried. If I had shot his butt before he ceased his attack then, in this jurisdiction, he would have been legally dead.

People who call for gun control are actually saying that I should have been beaten to death twenty years ago. For some odd reason, I take exception to that stance.

Bruce in West Oz
October 1, 2004, 04:05 AM
Pseudonym? My name is Bruce and I do live in Western Australia.

I don't check on every person's profile here; hence the 'bringing it to light' comment.

Dress it up any way you like, your postings on your blog and on the old talk.politics.guns indicate to me (my prerogative) that you are indeed implacably anti-gun. Argue all you want, I'm not interested.

Agricola, if you're talking to me, you've been on 'Ignore' for months now, about to be joined by Lambert. I have no interest in anything you have to say either.

Have a nice day.

agricola
October 1, 2004, 07:29 AM
hurrah for the discussion forum! especially the people who ignore what someone says in favour of what they think he said! and especially those who take part in discussions with their fingers in their ears!!

:banghead:

TimLambert
October 1, 2004, 03:07 PM
I checked the Rules of Conduct (http://www.thehighroad.org/code-of-conduct.html) for the HighRoad. They state: "personal attacks are prohibited". "Bruce" and F4GIB did not address in any way the substance of my post. I provided links to my sources. Anyone can check that I have accurately quoted Howard, Latham and Tingle and accurately reported their positions. Instead of discussing this, "Bruce" and F4GIB did nothing but attack me personally and misrepresent my views.

fallingblock
October 2, 2004, 06:58 AM
"I strongly disagree with Howard and agree with Latham here. I think law-abiding sporting and recreational shooters should be allowed to have guns and banning such ordinary citizens from having weapons is wrong. Howard is also the architect of the 1996 gun ban which I have already said was bad policy. Now I had already decided to support Latham over Howard because of other issues, but it’s still nice to be supporting the party with the better policy on firearms issues."
************************************************************


That's quite a balanced and reasonable statement for an Australian academic to author. :)

Thanks for that support, Tim.

I'm not so sure we can trust Latham on the issue, as one of our group approached him at the Labour Party selection in Sydney and he had absolutely no words of encouragement for firearms owners.

"Labour will not be the party for shooters" were his words, I believe.

Bruce in West Oz
October 2, 2004, 08:46 AM
Against everything I believe, I went back and read your last post, Dr Lambert.

What exactly is it with you? Because I refuse to engage in a futile debate with you, you regard it as personal attack? No one is allowed to disagree with you?

Get a life! You are only debating the firearms issue to keep your hand in. (Sound familiar? Check your own website.) It's an academic wank to you.

Appeal to the mods all you want, pal -- then tell me where I broke any rules.

I refuse to debate with you because any debate with you is not genuine; it is an academic exercise, with no endpoint other than the exercise itself. Go for it; but count me out.

I give you fair warning -- you are on my "ignore" list because I don't feel there is any value in debating this further. Understand this: I don't want to hear your bull???? any more!! Is that too hard for you to understand?

You'll continue to try to suppress firearms ownership in Australia, and I'll work equally hard to promote it.

Bye, bye Timmy baby.

agricola
October 2, 2004, 09:44 AM
he just did it again, remember:

3.) As a family-friendly board, we ask that you keep your language clean. If you wouldn't say it in front of your dear old Grandma, you probably don't want to say it here.

by bruce:

Get a life! You are only debating the firearms issue to keep your hand in. (Sound familiar? Check your own website.) It's an academic wank to you.

fallingblock
October 4, 2004, 04:21 AM
Tim certainly has a problem with John Lott.

I made the attempt to investigate that issue a while back and reached the conclusion that it was between Dr. Lott and Dr. Lambert.

John Lott seems quite open to data sharing and appears to have done so freely with Tim.

Bruce, I agree that Labour is not trustworthy on the firearms rights issue.

Tim's statement would appear to be genuine concerning his sense of injustice done to 'ordinary citizens' who wish to own firearms.

Why the heated rhetoric?:confused:

TimLambert
October 4, 2004, 08:31 AM
"Bruce", for someone who claims to be ignoring me, you sure spend a lot of time misrepresenting my position and motivation...

Boats
October 5, 2004, 06:34 PM
Please excuse, or don't, my nativism on this topic, but other than as a cautionary tale why does it matter at all to Americans what happens to gun laws in Australia?

Their situation is not even one of trying to lock the barn door after the horse has been stolen. It is more akin to trying to belatedly draw a line in the sand around the ruins of a barn somewhere near the sun bleached bones of a long slaughtered horse as the pilliagers come back one last time for the owners.

As for myself, I have a morbid fascination in watching the meek rearguard action of a spent force.

R.H. Lee
October 5, 2004, 06:41 PM
AKAIK, Australians have no Constitutional guarantees of any individual liberties, and the country is still a protectorate, or colony of Great Britain, which is half a world away. Ridiculous, and overdue for a War of Independence. We did it, you can too. :)

fallingblock
October 6, 2004, 08:26 PM
"Their situation is not even one of trying to lock the barn door after the horse has been stolen. It is more akin to trying to belatedly draw a line in the sand around the ruins of a barn somewhere near the sun bleached bones of a long slaughtered horse as the pilliagers come back one last time for the owners."
************************************************************

We're certainly wrecked over here as a result of not having any codified recognition of RKBA, as RileyMc states.

All it took was one nominally conservative P.M. who betrayed his rural support base (because he himself 'hates' guns) and some really fanatical anti-gun "activists" (Rebecca Peters, who is now chair of IANSA, and after YOUR firearms) using the media sensation of the Port Arthur shootings to get the ball rolling.:eek:

The Australian media are much more institutionally anti-gun than the U.S. media.

With Howard's party against us, gun owners had nowhere to turn.


************************************************************
"Please excuse, or don't, my nativism on this topic, but other than as a cautionary tale why does it matter at all to Americans what happens to gun laws in Australia?"
************************************************************


Boats, the relevance is that there is an entire body of well-funded internationalists such as 'Ms. Peters', who are working day and night to achieve their goal in the U.S.. The fewer nations remaining in favor of gun ownership, the more time and effort they are able to concentrate upon "fixing" the U.S.A.:eek:

It only took one gun-hating P.M. and a media event here to gain their victory, and they have lots of time, political influence and money to devote to you.

************************************************************
"As for myself, I have a morbid fascination in watching the meek rearguard action of a spent force."
************************************************************

Once the National/Liberal Parties jumped on the anti-gun bandwagon, gunowners as a political force were irrelevant.

I'm sure it is pathetic to watch.

I can assure you it is even more so to experience.

Please learn from our sad experience and resist the internationalists who are at this moment working to repeat their Australian success in the U.S.
:scrutiny:

Boats
October 6, 2004, 08:38 PM
I am glad you didn't take offense. I really once had an affinity for Australia, especially when I visited when I was in the Navy in the late 80s. That seems an age ago however. It seems today that the "subversive" side of the Aussie national character, that romanticism of having origins as a penal colony, that "devil may care" attitude that was at its most enjoyable for me in places like Darwin, or Perth, seems to have been stamped out in an effort to become sissified Southern Britons or something. It has to be that same manifestation of urbanite crap that our two countries must suffer largely from our respective Eastern Coasts.

I wouldn't worry about us for awhile yet. Nobody has lower political standing in this country than meddling foreign internationalists, even if they speak strangely accented English.

Don Gwinn
October 7, 2004, 02:41 PM
There haven't been any personal attacks I'd call actionable so far. However, it's obvious that's where this is heading. It also seems that whatever discussion of Mr. Howard vs. Mr. Latham was ever going to take place, has taken place.

I'm closing this one as much more likely to yield a bunch of flaming insults than any more meaningful discussion of the Australian election as it relates to firearms.

If you enjoyed reading about "Election in Australia -- Howard and Latham on guns" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!