Australia's ahead of the U.S.,,,,


PDA






fallingblock
March 10, 2004, 11:18 PM
The N.S.W. Police seem to have a very 'enlightened' view of gunowners:


************************************************************
ABC ONLINE:

It has been claimed western NSW police officers are being forced to put
off their ordinary duties in order to complete a firearms audit.

A spokesman for the New South Wales Police Association, Mick Hilder,
says the audit is a lengthy process in the western district because most
landholders own several guns

Mr Hilder says it is a dangerous situation, given that officers on
restricted duties usually have some sort of injury and do not carry
handcuffs or weapons.

"So they're going to a place, who's known [where]...to do an inspection
of the way these firearms are kept and secured so that they have to
contact the owner first before they turn up, so if the owner has a grudge or a bad day they may well have the opportunity to attack some of our police," he said.
************************************************************
:fire:

These rural firearms owners are in the main managers or owners of vast cattle or sheep properties. They have complied with the registration and licensing procedures required and now are being "audited" for storage facilities.

The NSW Police obviously hold the firearms owners in contempt, or are simply paranoid due to ignorance and misinformation.

If you enjoyed reading about "Australia's ahead of the U.S.,,,," here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
P95Carry
March 10, 2004, 11:24 PM
The NSW Police obviously hold the firearms owners in contempt Not so much ''the police'' per se I'd think, but more the ''powers that be''.

And yeah ... probably much paranoia and ignorance thrown in too.

As ever, such a pity that there seems such a problem, differentiating between legal and law-abiding ..... and criminal.

Keep up enough of the harrassment and stigmatizing ... and even the legal owners will feel or be made to be criminal ... maybe then there can be some ''trouble'' expected ... but who's fault would that be? Not the legal guys for sure.

Continue with paranoia and ''criminalizing'' the legitimate people ..... and you have a recipe for problems ...... self inflicted.

4v50 Gary
March 11, 2004, 12:01 AM
Yes but they're far behind the Workers' Paradise in Communist China. Despite gun control, some "peasants" still have black powder shotguns. They don't have percussion caps but they figured out how to get around that. Where there's a will, there's a way.

threeseven
March 11, 2004, 05:39 AM
Other than the utterly ridiculous insinuation that people might attack police doing audits, I see no problem with this article or the procedures undertaken to ensure proper storage.

If you make storage laws, which for the most part are relatively sensible, you must be able to enforce them. These 'audits' as you put it are organised by the police with the firearm owner by phone, a suitable time is agreed upon, and the police meet with the owner at their house/storage facility.

The police check the storage is up to scratch and the firearm owner gets a certificate to say so.

What in the world is wrong with sensible storage laws? Some - not all, but some - people who own guns just aren't willing to make the extra effort and secure their weapons properly, and stolen legal firearms will do no end of bad to our cause.

Night Guy
March 11, 2004, 05:46 AM
What good is a gun in the safe, when there's a knife at your throat?

threeseven
March 11, 2004, 05:52 AM
Night Guy said:What good is a gun in the safe, when there's a knife at your throat?
Let's not argue that here. Carry and self-defence laws are literally non-existent in this country, unfortunately. This discussion is about secure storage of firearms. It doesn't matter where you keep your guns in Australia because you are simply not allowed to use them against another human for any reason whatsoever, so they may aswell be in a safe.

Stand_Watie
March 11, 2004, 06:05 AM
What in the world is wrong with sensible storage laws? Some - not all, but some - people who own guns just aren't willing to make the extra effort and secure their weapons properly, and stolen legal firearms will do no end of bad to our cause

How about that fact that enforcing safe storage laws diverts police resources from real crime? Meanwhile, criminals will continue to do what they do with or without access to firearms. It isn't 'stolen legal firearms' that harm "our" cause, it's the faulty logic of the gun grabbers blaming the bad behavior of humans on inanimate objects.

threeseven
March 11, 2004, 06:45 AM
If you honestly think it's not worth securing a firearm properly, you're utterly deluded.

I like guns, okay? I like being able to own guns, and I think other responsible citizens should be allowed to own guns, too. Despite this, no shade of rosy coloured glasses will hide the fact that a firearm is still a deadly weapon and thus shouldn't be left sitting in a ute tray or in a cupboard somewhere.

A simple 15 minute interview with police to satisfy what are quite reasonable storage requirements is not a big deal at all, and society is unlikely to lapse into chaos from stretched police resources as a result of it. Can you imagine what would happen if some bastard managed to steal a registered, legal weapon from an owner who thought it wasn't worth locking up? What if he used it to kill a child, or a policeman, or a bank teller? It would set into motion a chain of events that would likely result in firearm ownership reforms and more liberties taken away. So I'm willing to put up with a little storage inspection every once and awhile, if that's what it takes to lessen the chance of something wayward happening and restricting my rights.

If people aren't responsible enough to take care of their own storage requirements (and let's face it, a lot of Australians would leave their rifles wherever was convenient if they were allowed) then someone has to MAKE THEM secure their weapons. The storage laws are protecting us from ourselves (to be more accurate, a certain section of ourselves).

You seem to believe that guns can do no harm. I will admit, on their own they certainly can't. However, a firearm of any description is a formiddable weapon and one that have every precaution taken to keep it away from people who might seek to destroy life and liberty with it.

Stand_Watie
March 11, 2004, 07:06 AM
If you honestly think it's not worth securing a firearm properly, you're utterly deluded.

I don't. I believe it's not worth dedicating police resources to.


I like guns, okay? I like being able to own guns, and I think other responsible citizens should be allowed to own guns, too. Despite this, no shade of rosy coloured glasses will hide the fact that a firearm is still a deadly weapon and thus shouldn't be left sitting in a ute tray or in a cupboard somewhere.

Gunowners like you are the reason you will soon not be able to own any firearms at all in Australia.

What if he used it to kill a child, or a policeman, or a bank teller? It would set into motion a chain of events that would likely result in firearm ownership reforms and more liberties taken away.

Guess what? You're going to lose them anyway. Your only option is to move away from Australia. It's the idiots who blame the gun who are to blame for the gun rights being lost.


You seem to believe that guns can do no harm. I will admit, on their own they certainly can't. However, a firearm of any description is a formiddable weapon and one that have every precaution taken to keep it away from people who might seek to destroy life and liberty with it.

Meanwhile, criminals will continue to kill others with or without firearms, and you're wasting time, police resources and money on law abiding citizens.

threeseven
March 11, 2004, 07:18 AM
Stand_Watie said:Gunowners like you are the reason you will soon not be able to own any firearms at all in Australia.
I'd love it if you could elaborate on this for me.

EDIT: Scratch that, I am not going to argue with an American about the validity of an Australian law. Our cultural differences mean we will see totally different ways on this, there's no reason for us to argue about it. Mind you, I still take offence to your comment.

EDIT 2: I will clarify my position on this matter. I feel that Australians are hard done by with regards to firearms legislation. I feel that there is nothing dangerous about a responsible, legal firearm owner. I feel that there is nothing short of a miracle that will reverse the state our country is in with regards to firearms legislation. I also feel that whining about something as inane as storage checks is the real waste of time and effort here.

Stand_Watie
March 11, 2004, 07:36 AM
I will clarify my position on this matter. I feel that Australians are hard done by with regards to firearms legislation.

It's going to get worse.


I also feel that whining about something as inane as storage checks is the real waste of time and effort here.

It's certainly a waste of time in regards to influencing Australian law - but it's quite worth pointing out to Americans who might be tempted to support "sensible" (not to mention expensive and worthless) gun laws in order to "protect" themselves from future attacks on their gun rights just exactly what happens to gun rights in societies where the gunnies lay back and let themselves be raped by the anti-gun nuts.

Your gun storage laws don't protect society from criminals, they simply impose a greater burden on gunowners and the law enforcement system.

foghornl
March 11, 2004, 07:45 AM
So, when the dingo's got your baby by the throat, do you have time to go open the safe, open the seperate ammo locker, etc, in time?

It is time for some change in the "powers that be" down under, me thinks.

tcsd1236
March 11, 2004, 07:57 AM
"Mr Hilder says it is a dangerous situation, given that officers on
restricted duties usually have some sort of injury and do not carry
handcuffs or weapons.

"So they're going to a place, who's known [where]...to do an inspection
of the way these firearms are kept and secured so that they have to
contact the owner first before they turn up, so if the owner has a grudge or a bad day they may well have the opportunity to attack some of our police," he said."

The REAL issue here that posters thus far have not commented on is that they are considering this detail officers are sent out on as some sort of light duty appropriate for officers on the injured list who cannot yet return to full duty and thus are not armed. I don't know any agency in my area that would send light duty officers out of the office, let alone on what the agency down there admits ahs a degree of potential harm. If it were in the USA and something happened to that officer, based on the news reports alone the officer would own the agency in Court.I am returning to work on Monday after surgery on a light duty status, and I wont even be allowed out of the office til my doctor clears me for full duty.
They are using the fact that they are being idiots in their personnel management practices as an excuse to be stupid about gun owners.

Tamara
March 11, 2004, 07:59 AM
...stolen legal firearms will do no end of bad to our cause.

I know! Why not make it illegal to steal firearms, and vigorously prosecute those who do so? ;)

(Why pass more laws that only serve to use up police resources monitoring people who are so squeaky clean that they are allowed to own guns under Australia's positively draconian firearms laws? That ain't where you're gonna find the bad guys, ossifer. :scrutiny: )

HankB
March 11, 2004, 08:35 AM
It would set into motion a chain of events that would likely result in firearm ownership reforms and more liberties taken away. I thought this was happening down under anyway? . . . someone has to MAKE THEM secure their weapons. And soon someone will MAKE THEM surrender the rest of them anyway.

Chip Dixon
March 11, 2004, 08:50 AM
threeseven,

I'm curious about Australian Law. Are you required to keep your firearms secured at all times? Or do you only need to have a place to keep them secured that you can show them at an audit, and to use when you're not at your residence?

IOW, is it legal to leave firearms around the house, unsecured, while you're home?

threeseven
March 11, 2004, 09:07 AM
I feel as though I'm being beaten up on a little in this thread. This audit/storage check stuff isn't new, it's always been this way. No new law has been passed whatsoever. I'm not going to argue with anyone else, I don't feel like dealing with all this hostility :( You're all looking at this from an American viewpoint. I personally don't feel that a fifteen minute check every 3 or 4 years is 'draconian'. Many of our gunlaws border on retarded, but I don't think the all the drama is required with regards to this particular one.

To answer your question Chip, no we aren't allowed to leave weapons unsecured around the place when not in use. You can have them out while cleaning them, working on them, fondling them (er) etc., but you couldn't go upstairs and go to sleep or read or book or something and leave a rifle downstairs on a chair or your safe open. They are meant to be secured when not in use or transit to use.

Stand_Watie
March 11, 2004, 09:24 AM
They are meant to be secured when not in use or transit to use.

What's to keep the bad guys fom putting a knife (meat cleaver, hay fork, etc) to your throat and demanding you open your safe and surrender them? Perhaps a safe in your home isn't safe enough? I predict the next requirement will be that they not be allowed to be kept in the home whatsoever....and doubtless there will be some of the few remaining gunowners in Australia who will go along with that and defend the "sensibleness" of it.:scrutiny:

edit p.s. I'm sorry you feel beat up upon, and apologize for my contribution perhaps being unneccessarily snide. I'll try to be less caustic. I think you'll find however that defending gun laws as "sensible" strikes a nerve with American pro-gun rights types.

dischord
March 11, 2004, 09:43 AM
If you honestly think it's not worth securing a firearm properly, you're utterly deluded. Opposition to storage laws does not mean opposition to safe storage. :) I personally don't feel that a fifteen minute check every 3 or 4 years is 'draconian'. Draconian? Maybe not. But it is especially odious for the government to demand periodic access to your property so that it can look for violations of the law. This flies in the face of both the ideals that you shouldn't be subject to a search (inspection) without probable cause and that you shouldn't have to prove that you are obeying the law.

These ideals are not uniquely American. They come out of the Anglo legal tradition, from which Australian law also derives.

It's not really a gun rights issue. It's a property rights and criminal defendant rights issue. We'd have the same reaction if guns were not involved in the inspections.

threeseven
March 11, 2004, 09:45 AM
Mate, I'm as pro-gun as they come.

But I have to live with these laws, short of a full-scale uprising, my options for dealing with the situation is severely limited. In short, to rationalisation.

I think it would be fantastic if every single person was responsible enough to secure their own firearms and no police intervention was required. I happen to have a safe in my garage that weighs more than 600kg and led a past life as a bank safe. Some people AREN'T responsible, and these silly audits are an admittedly knee-jerk response to that.

dischord
March 11, 2004, 09:50 AM
I think it would be fantastic if every single person was responsible enough to secure their own firearms and no police intervention was required. I think it would be fantastic if all parents kept their poisonous cleaning supplies locked up. I think it would be fantastic if all home owners kept fire extinguishers next to their stoves.

Hey, speaking of home fires, more Australians die in home fires than by gun. Does the government come in periodically to inspect your smoke detectors? After all, it would save more lives than the gun storage laws.

PigPen
March 11, 2004, 10:21 AM
...in Australia because you are simply not allowed to use them against another human for any reason whatsoever, so they may aswell be in a safe.


Which is precisely the purpose for which they were intended. Therefore, if the law in Australia is followed, why have them at all............right?


PigPen

Kinsman
March 11, 2004, 10:29 AM
Whenever I leave the house.
Other than that, I have 'em close to hand.

If somebody were to steal 'em and commit a crime with 'em....well, crime is already against the law, right?

Besides, 'relatively sensible' infringements upon Liberty? Relative....to what?

Chip Dixon
March 11, 2004, 11:04 AM
threeseven, thanks for enlightening me. I feel sorry for you, being stripped of such basic rights. It sounds like you're still a few steps away from auschwitztralia, though. So you still have time to bury your guns and ammo somewhere secret in the outback.

RobW
March 11, 2004, 12:25 PM
Shows clearly, that Government distrusts their "citizens" (slaves would be a better word) deeply. EVERY GOVERNMENT, no matter weather "Democracy" or Tyranny.

Gov is clearly NOT interested in persecute criminals or protect our chiiiiildren, they are solely and only interested in disarming the populace.

The only thing the Government fears are independent and armed citizens. They prefer sheep/slaves.

Cosmoline
March 11, 2004, 01:36 PM
Threeseven has a point. At this stage down under, the gov'ment has all but eliminated the citizen's RKBA. So what's the point in getting worked up about police monitoring? It's just the natural result of the idiotic laws.

Also, if these laws were in place here, the JBT's who came to inspect my property and the property of most Alaskans would have a great deal to fear. So perhaps their concern is legitimate. Though from all I've heard Australian gun owners are far, far more patient than we would be.

dischord
March 11, 2004, 01:45 PM
So what's the point in getting worked up about police monitoring? Because it's not really an RKBA issue. It's a property rights and a invalid search issue.

Cosmoline
March 11, 2004, 01:52 PM
You're correct, of course. Of course, now that the Aussies have no more RKBA, their other rights are increasingly meaningless.

M1911Owner
March 11, 2004, 01:58 PM
If you make storage laws,... you must be able to enforce them. Well, us Yankees have this take on that thought:The right of the People to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularity describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.That's the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution, part of our Bill of Rights. Simply translated, is says that the police have no right to come poking around in things just to see if you're in compliance with the law; the only reason they can search your home, property, or person is if there is probable cause to think that you're actually violating the law.

dischord
March 11, 2004, 02:00 PM
us Yankees Us Rebs too ;)

HankB
March 11, 2004, 02:22 PM
These rural firearms owners are in the main managers or owners of vast cattle or sheep properties. It doesn't matter where you keep your guns in Australia because you are simply not allowed to use them against another human for any reason whatsoever Without commenting on the odious nature of the second quote, it looks like if you're on one of these vast properties - presumably well removed from the "protection" of the police - and you do suffer a violent attack by one or more bad guys, the likely outcomes are:

1. Don't shoot bad guy. Lose fight. You & family die or are injured.

2. Shoot bad guy. Call cops, admit to shooting, go to jail for a long time.

3. Shoot bad guy. Use shovel, get caught anyway, go to jail for a long time.

4. Shoot bad guy. Use shovel, don't get caught, don't go to jail at all.

So your best bet is just head to the outback, use a shovel, and shut up.

The Real Hawkeye
March 11, 2004, 04:41 PM
It must be awful to live in a nanny state. :uhoh:

Standing Wolf
March 11, 2004, 05:26 PM
Any cop who wanted to "audit" my guns would find himself in hostile country.

greyhound
March 11, 2004, 06:39 PM
Wow, though we share many common values its obvious there's some big differences in our cultures.

Pro gun in Australia can obviously be much different than in the USA.

threeseven, I undertand your frustration. One man alone can't change the laws, and from what little I know, the huge majority of Australians, and the politicians, are OK with this draconian nonsense.

Here, I live in Maryland, one of the most gun unfriendly states (but nowhere near as bad as Australia) and look in envy at a place like Texas, where guns are an everday part of life.

Good luck, mate. Our forum is much the richer with opinions from all around the globe!

Headless Thompson Gunner
March 11, 2004, 08:04 PM
These audits seem to be contrary to a number of basic tenets of law here in the States. I don't know anything about Australian law, so maybe the basic assumptions are different over there, but I doubt it. Both U.S. and Australian law stems from the same source, British common law, and they ought to be roughly similar.

Ignoring the RKBA issue specifically, I can think of several rules that government is breaking by conducting these "safe storage audits." Most have been mentioned already.

1) Individuals are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. The burden is on the government to prove that the citizen is breaking the law. It is NOT the citizen's responsibility to prove that he is obeying the law. Thus the individual should not have to prove that his storage means are legal; the government must prove that they are not (WITHOUT violating your property rights in the process).

2) The government does not have the right to enter your property for any reason, unless it has specific evidence that a crime has been committed. Only after securing a warant from a judge, based on evidence, can the police search your property. Thus, without specific evidence that your weapons are not stored properly, the police have no business insisting on inspecting your storage facilities.

3) The government is not allowed to force you to provide evidence against yourself. This is specifically stated in the 5th ammendment, whereby you don't have to testify against yourself, but the principle applies to any circumstance where the police may coerce you into providing damaging evidence to be used against you. Thus, you should not be required to cooperate with a police "audit" ("investigation") where the intent is to find you in violation of th elaw.

4) Most importantly, it simply isn't any of the government's businiess what possesions you own, how you use them, or how you store them. The government should leave you alone so long as no crime is committed. (And don't tell me that "improper storage" is a legitimate crime; that law should never have been written) Thus it should be that any law dictating how a citizen orders his home is offensive to the concept of a free and independent citizenry.


That said, I'd like to know if any of you Australians think these "audits" truly are reasonable and sensible. Properly storing your weapons is a morally responsible thing to do. But is it worth trashing your most fundamental rights in order to catch the few individuals who don't store their firearms safely???

I am sincerly curious, threeseven (or any other Autstralians who choose to comment), whether you think it is concionable for your government to carry out these so called "audits." Leave firearms/RKBA matters out of it, that isn't the issue here.

oldfart
March 11, 2004, 08:16 PM
There are a lot of differences in Australian and American laws, but the biggest differences seem to entail attitudes. Australia seems to be a bit further down the road to Socialism then we here in the USA and I believe it can be shown by this quotation:

"The storage laws are protecting us from ourselves...

I-- for one-- don't want my government to protect me from myself. Regardless, we're subjected to all kinds of "protection" by a multitude of agencies. About the only area not protected is our borders, which are supposedly earmarked for security by our Constitution. Everything else... from regulating what foods we can eat to when and how we can travel, has never been mentioned in that document.

In time, we too (or our progeny) will happily tell the world something frighteningly similar to the above quote. I hope I am dead by then.

The Real Hawkeye
March 11, 2004, 08:17 PM
Another legal principle that stems from English Common Law is that "a man's home is his castle," i.e., the government may not tell you what to do inside of your home. Naturally, the traditional crimes are not covered, i.e., you may not commit murder in your home, and then assert that it is your castle, and therefore none of government's business. But how you choose to safeguard your personal property inside your home, on your real estate, is just none of the government's business.

greyhound
March 11, 2004, 08:17 PM
Both U.S. and Australian law stems from the same source, British common law, and they ought to be roughly similar.

In my opinion, its not what the laws say, its what the majority wants (look at the leftists bellowing about the "living Constitution").

Also in my opinion, it has to be a hugely overwhelming majority to "want" before a clearly stated point of law is ignored.

We don't have that here, therefore our "culture war". It may be different in Australia.

The Real Hawkeye
March 11, 2004, 08:25 PM
In a free society, only actual crimes (i.e., actual violations of the rights of others) are outlawed, not those activities which might somehow make an actual crime possible down the road. Unfortunately, by this standard, neither Australia nor the U.S. are any longer free countries. Australia, however, is considerably ahead of us on the road to serfdom.

Spinner
March 11, 2004, 08:33 PM
In support of threeseven here, I have to agree that the US citizens on this board don't really appreciate and are unlikley to understand Australian (or NZ) gun laws.

Like Australia, all New Zealand gun owners have a responsibility to have their firearms secured at all times. If you're not in direct control of the firearm, it needs to be made safe and secured. We're also not allowed under any circumstances to point a firearm at any person and even presenting a firearm is an offence. Handguns are only allowed to be transported between home, gun club and gunsmith and control of handgun owners falls in a large part on the gun clubs rather than the police.

We also have inspections from police officers to ensure that a licenced firearms owner has the facility to securely store firearms and ammunition ... even if they don't actually own a firearm!! This inspection occurs within a month of obtaining a licence or shifting to a new address. The local cops in each area just want to aquaint themselves with known gunowners and to see that people are responsible ...... its also an opportunity to drive a few points home. There are specific questions in our firearms licencing procedure that include "would you ever consider using a firearm against an intruder/assailant?" - the sane answer is "of course not!!" whether its true or not. NZ citizens also go through a background security check by the police and do a type of psych evaluation, including providing references. A training course on gun handling and shooting is also mandatory for new licence holders.

A gun secured in a safe might be useless if you live in a context where its legally defensible to have a gun stored any other way, however, in Australia and NZ having a gun stored in an unsecured manner is a violation of your firearms licence, is a firearms offence and is likely to have you excluded from being able to hold a firearms licence to own and operate firearms (as well as incur fines and prison time). We are not protected by constitutional rights to own and bear arms as US citizens are. The intentional use of firearms for home defense is (unfortunately) not a viable option for law abiding Australian and NZ citizens, the use of firearms remains a viable option only for criminals.

Are our gun laws right? - Hell no!! Are they likely to improve? - Unlikely!! Can we stop them from deteriorating?? - Possibly .... but only if we work hard at it!

Spinner

The Real Hawkeye
March 11, 2004, 08:45 PM
Spinner, doesn't all that make you feel kind of like a serf, rather than a citizen? I am frankly horrified by some of the things I am hearing. A bird cage, no matter how comfortably outfitted, is still a bird cage, and the idea of being in one horrifies most Americans. Well, actually, nowadays, I cannot say it horrifies MOST Americans, but it sure horrifies us here at The High Road, i.e., decent Americans.

Spinner
March 11, 2004, 09:33 PM
Absolutely it makes me feel like I'm under the control of the government, however, NZ citizens are less abhored by it than US citizens would be.

NZ has always had the attitude that gun ownership is a privilege, not a right. We don't have, nor have we ever had, any constitutional protection that says we have a right to own and operate firearms. It is extremely unlikely that we would ever be able to get something like that put in place now.

We really don't have too many options apart from preserving what privileges we currently have. Unfortunately we suffer from a somewhat socialist governmental system that feels that it has to protect its citizens from themselves .... and because some people don't want to take responsibility for themselves or don't want to offend others or are connived, weaselled and basically chiselled into an untenable situation, the socialist "do-gooders" manage to instigate a progressive dumbing down of society until they manage to take over control .... punishing those that do well and promoting no-hopers and idiots until everyone is equal in some sort of socialist utopia. A backlash is coming .... but in a society where even the cops do not openly carry guns, I'm afraid that gun ownership by responsible citizenry will still remain a privilege and be treated as such.

In compensation, we have some of the worlds best hunting and fishing opportunities. There may come a time when firearms legislation is relaxed to a degree, but only when the assistance of recreational hunters is required to control deer, pig and goat populations .... of course that means the govt has to admit they can't cope with their pest management responsibilities and that's not likely to happen anytime soon.

As far as police trampling rights by interviewing you in your home, they ring to make an appointment, they ask to inspect your firearms storage facilities, they have a chat, they leave. What you do when a cop is NOT there is up to you, but woe betide ye if you point a firearm at another human.

That's the theory ...... I could give you an example of the reality of gun crime and how its handled in this country if you're interested.

Spinner

P95Carry
March 11, 2004, 10:01 PM
Spinner - your take on the reality of gun crime would be appreciated . good to hear the ''man in the street's'' views and analysis.We're also not allowed under any circumstances to point a firearm at any person and even presenting a firearm is an offence. Actually .. it is worth pointing out that even here much the same applies.!! There is no mandate that says you can point a gun regardless ... that is ''brandishing'' and a severe offence ... unless it can be proven to be linked to a defensive situation.. and if pointed at an individual might also be labelled ''reckless endangerment'' ...... Even simple presentation can be regarded as brandishing.

The right to carry is really little more than an individual's ''insurance'' so that if he or she is threatened with deadly force . it can at least be answered .. but there is still enormous accountability involed. It is not as many seem to imagine outside of U.S.

I fear that your ''privelage'' status re firearms can and maybe will go just the same way as it did in UK .. it is a hard thing to fight .. particularly when shooter numbers are minority in count ..... and there are probably too way too many ''lefties'' etc who would just love to see the guns gone.

What saddens me most with you guys, and Oz and UK ... is the effective deprivation of a sensible means of self defence . to the point that the bad guys seem to have the upper hand in the ''victim stakes''. Woe betide the UK citizen (sorry - SUBJECT) .. who lays hands on a bad guy ... like as not he is deep do-do.

threeseven
March 11, 2004, 10:05 PM
As I read through the latest batch of replies, I was formulating a response in my head, but it looks like Spinner has pretty much hit it on the head already.

Do I feel like a slave? I don't really. We have some silly gun laws, and I can't own an automatic rifle just because I feel like it, but other than that this is a bloody top notch country to live in.

I was but a young pup when the 'Port Authur Massacre' took place. If I had to single out a moment in history that spelled the end for gun rights in Australia, it would be that incident. The SKS went from being a common farming gun to illegal in a matter of months. I remember playing with Lego, watching the gun collections on TV, all those guns crushed into scrap. Am I angry that my future actions and liberties are dictated by events out of my control? Of course I am. Do I really think that the current gun laws could stop a determined madman from doing the same thing again? No I do not.

But the point is, I've grown up with these gun laws. I couldn't fight for these rights because I wasn't born yet. So I make do with what I have, and from where I stand, storage inspections are the least I have to worry about. There are many countries and societies where they're worse off than me. I can have as many children as I want, I can vote, I can speak out publicly against the government, I could even start my own politcal party if I wanted. I can own guns - there's just a few catches.

So while I can appreciate that you don't want the same set of laws in your own country, try to understand that in some places of the world people with our hobby have to make some special efforts. It doesn't make us 'serfs'.

What's more, and I know this is going to set off a flamewar the likes of which have never been witnessed, if I haven't broken the law, I have no problem with a policeman coming into my house. Why should I be worried if I haven't done anything? You Americans seem awfully worried about your police. I have friends and family who are police officers, and more often than not, down here, they treat people with respect unless they're forced to do otherwise.

Rebeldon
March 11, 2004, 10:35 PM
threeseven,

You just don't get it, do you? :banghead:

It should not be the government's business whether I even own a gun to begin with, let alone having them come to my house and inspect how I store it. It's called privacy! We have this thing called the Bill of Rights. You ought to read it someday. They aren't just our rights, they are your rights too. :) Your rights exist apart from any recognition they receive by some government. No government can GRANT or CREATE rights for it's citizens. Rights simple ARE. It is up to the people of every country to ratify constitutions that RECOGNIZE these rights, and prohibits their government from infringing upon them. Bud sadly, they don't. :(

Our Bill of Rights recognizes our basic human right of privacy. The Fourth Amendment reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Basically, the government should have "probable cause" that you might have committed a crime before they can search your house. Your house is not a public domain. It is private! It should not be subject to inspection for any reason, other than if there is reason to believe you might have committed a crime. It's not like a restaurant or industrial plant that should be inspected for health concerns. It is your home, not a business that interacts with the public. For a government to infringe upon this right is statism. By performing this audit in your home, about how you secure your firearms, they are treating you like you are a criminal. Fine, they have laws that say how you must secure your firearms (I'm not argue whether that is okay or not). But for your government to coerce it's citizens, by the force of arms (if you resist they will eventually bring their guns), to comply with this audit, is to assume that owning firearms (which no government has any business knowing about in the first place) automatically makes you suspect of violating this law. In other words, they have no reason to believe you are violating the firearms storage laws other than the fact that you own guns, and they are using that as their basis for the audit. They call it an "audit", but it is a search. If they find that you are not in compliance with their storage laws, you better believe they will use it as evidence against you in a court of law--so it's a search.

You live in a country that has a government that does not trust it's citizens. Actually, that makes you a subject, not a citizen. The U.S. Government does this too, but at a much lesser degree. It's not as overt a distrust as your government. But the idea that the police can just come into your house and inspect your guns is statist to the core.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? - Patrick Henry, During Virginia's ratification convention, (1788), in The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution at 168, Jonathan Elliot, (New York, Burt Franklin: 1888)

fallingblock
March 12, 2004, 12:54 AM
For what it's worth, when I posted that quote from the NSW police representative, I was incensed that the lamebrained moron would suggest that the police were in any danger of 'ambush' simply because they were doing audits of lawful firearms owners, all of whom had complied with the law fully. It's precisely that attitude of "all gun owners are suspect" that is being promoted by the leftist media such as ABC and SBS, the commercial stations, and every major newspaper in Australia.
We are being subjected to character assasination simply because we own firearms, and follow the laws, draconian and pointless as they are.


threeseven's comment points out how far down the slope the leftists have driven us:
************************************************************
"Can you imagine what would happen if some bastard managed to steal a registered, legal weapon from an owner who thought it wasn't worth locking up? What if he used it to kill a child, or a policeman, or a bank teller? "
************************************************************



The logical answer, as our dear alert and aware Tamara has noted, should be to punish the criminals who stole the weapons and misused them, not to attack the firearms owner for allegedly failing to secure the firearms "properly". If the thief kills a child, a policeman or a bank teller, then that thief should be made to pay the price for his crimes. They are in no way related to the lawful owner of the firearm involved.

We are being "dumbed down" in Australia to the point that an Australia firearms owner can actually defend the concept of placing the blame for misuse of a firearm on the unfortunate victim of theft rather than the perpetrator of the crime.

This is how effectively the anti-gun pseudo-intellectuals have captured and controlled the so-called 'debate' over firearms here.:barf:


And yes, Rebeldon, most Australians just cannot understand, let alone hope to attain, the firearms rights too many Americans take for granted.



************************************************************
"So while I can appreciate that you don't want the same set of laws in your own country, try to understand that in some places of the world people with our hobby have to make some special efforts. It doesn't make us 'serfs'."
************************************************************


Give it a bit of time, threeseven....it will.
We have the same natural rights as all other freeborn humans, we just don't understand the concept of RKBA here in Oz, and the government does not want us to.:fire:



************************************************************
"Why should I be worried if I haven't done anything? You Americans seem awfully worried about your police. I have friends and family who are police officers, and more often than not, down here, they treat people with respect unless they're forced to do otherwise."
************************************************************


There are a lot of good cops in the Australian states, and a lot of downright corrupt and officious petty tyrants as well.

The point is, the police should not be assuming that because we are lawful firearms owners, it then follows that they are in danger of ambush for looking at our storage. The firearms laws in Australia are now so complex and ridiculous that in many cases you won't KNOW that you've done something wrong until the cops tell you. :scrutiny:



Spinner:
************************************************************
"Unfortunately we suffer from a somewhat socialist governmental system that feels that it has to protect its citizens from themselves .... and because some people don't want to take responsibility for themselves or don't want to offend others or are connived, weaselled and basically chiselled into an untenable situation, the socialist "do-gooders" manage to instigate a progressive dumbing down of society until they manage to take over control .... punishing those that do well and promoting no-hopers and idiots until everyone is equal in some sort of socialist utopia."
************************************************************


That's as fine a synopsis of Huluhn's government as I've seen.:D

You'd think that after the Parliamentary Select Committee findings and the Canadian fiasco with registration that they'd have sense enough to leave the Kiwi firearms laws alone, but then Mr. Hawkins wouldn't be able to repay his obligations to Phil Alpers.:eek:


************************************************************
"There may come a time when firearms legislation is relaxed to a degree, but only when the assistance of recreational hunters is required to control deer, pig and goat populations .... of course that means the govt has to admit they can't cope with their pest management responsibilities and that's not likely to happen anytime soon."
************************************************************


No, the way government's going the entire 'Mainland" will be covered in poison baits and hunters will be forbidden to trespass on the declared land.

How did N.Z. get into such a mess in such a short time?

It was just in 1983 that we got firearms registration declared "unworkable and of no assistance in solving crimes", got our lifetime licences for $35 and we were away laughing. After the Aramoana thing, like Australia and Port Arthur, the government and media focused on guns as some sort of evil presence in society.

It certainly wasn't any "safe storage" problem with David Grey or Martin Bryant, was it?

Stand_Watie
March 12, 2004, 01:39 AM
That was very nicely put fallingblock. Obviously not all Australians toe the government line. If I can add a tangent to part of your response...


There are a lot of good cops in the Australian states, and a lot of downright corrupt and officious petty tyrants as well.

I'd be willing to bet that the majority of cops in Hong Kong or Singapore are kind, decent people who chose their occupation either simply to make a living, or because they want to help others. Try to imagine defending the status quo of not enjoying those civil rights that you have that they don't based on "more often than not, down here, they treat people with respect unless they're forced to do otherwise"

Don Gwinn
March 12, 2004, 02:13 AM
ThreeSeven, before you go much further, it's going to become necessary for you to decide whether you will or will not argue this point. Once you've argued for three pages already, it's going to be hard to make the case that you won't argue.
If you don't want to argue with me, I won't argue with you, but can't help but point out that you brought up the subject you don't want to argue about, and here it is the second page and you're still in the discussion. ;)
THR is more addictive than crack.


As far as police trampling rights by interviewing you in your home, they ring to make an appointment, they ask to inspect your firearms storage facilities, they have a chat, they leave. What you do when a cop is NOT there is up to you, but woe betide ye if you point a firearm at another human.
And what, pray tell, happens to the people who respond to these polite and unintrusive phone calls by saying "No thanks, I don't think I'll let you search my home"? I bet it isn't pleasant. People always think if there are no dogs or jackboots, there couldn't POSSIBLY be anything wrong. The problem with that is that by the time the "REAL" trampling of rights (being herded onto cattle cars by jackbooted thugs with leashed dogs and subguns) comes around, it will be far to late to do anything very meaningful about it. And the next time that happens, there may not be the equivalent of a 1940's America to bail the sufferers out. Or nearly as bad, they may be "liberated" by the equivalent of a 1940's Soviet Union instead.
Am I angry that my future actions and liberties are dictated by events out of my control? Of course I am.
No offense, but you don't believe in liberties. You've made it quite clear that you believe only in privileges granted to you by your government--and taken from you at will by that same government.
Your actions are determined by you. No one and nothing else can ever force you to do what you do not choose to do. I too was born in a place where my forebears gave up liberties before I was born (a state called Illinois.) But I'm fighting like hell to turn it around. It's not easy, but I have not yet begun to fight.

But, hey, who am I to tell you what to resent? If it doesn't bother you to be told who comes and goes in your own home, maybe the next step won't bother you either. Good luck with that.

captlid
March 12, 2004, 02:42 AM
The process of tyranny and the police role in the process.

http://memory.loc.gov/const/bor.html american bill of rights.

Ok so we have this list of what govt can NOT do. Say the govt (local) through the vote of the majority decides that certain people should be imprisoned just because of their beliefs and political affiliation, (1) Now these people being good hardworking people with families file a petition with their local govt, basically saing "we arent committing crimes against humanity (rape, robbery, murder)and havent done anything wrong." The govt doesnt respond to the petition but continues to toe the status quo. So what do these people do? Some hope things will eventually go away, others leave and a third group prepares for the inevitable.
Now the govt brings charges against certain people for breaking the law. The jury can refuse to convict if it doesnt agree with the law. The only way a jury can do that is if its instructed to judge both the law and the actual crime committed.
Now the police are stuck with enforcing these laws due to professional ethics. Which only serves to build mistrust between the police and that minority. (even if the police treat those people politely and cordially at first.)
After the minority finds out its not liked by sheep, govt, or media, but is compelled to stay in the area due to work and family obligations, the only way to stay safe is for these three entities not to know about you or your interests and beliefs.
Now if the govt decides to literally start going door to door and imprisoning the minority, they need a few things to be very successful. They need a list of the minority people and what they do, where they go, (Multitude of ways to get that in our modern day and age)
within that list they need to know who's armed and with what, so they can devise a strategy to neutralize them.
Once the armed folks are unarmed, its much easier for the govt to just round up folks to prison.
The first people to go are the minority, the second are their supporters. The third the now just awakened enablers. (people who naively put the laws into place and now they are coming back to bite them in the butt.) Oh yeh and anyone else who the govt doesnt like.

Now who does the actual rounding up. The police. Not a country's military, but police. Now if you're a police officer in certain parts of the united states these days, you're in a tight spot. In new york city, our mayor decided to open a second court that will specifically prosecute THE POSSESSION OF AN UNLICENSED GUN. Just another nail in the coffin on people and police relationships. Policeman goes to house, person shows paperwork, yada yada everything is ok. Next day policeman goes to another house and the person doesnt have the paperwork due to financial reasons and works in a dangerous hood. person doesnt want to give up his gun. See where this is going?
Thats why most of the people who live in certain parts of USA are wary of the police. Because the political climate here is being setup to put the police against the people, and the people against the police. The politicians dont go door to door, or walk the streets. But they expect the police officers to enforce those laws.

Its really a huge process and a whole lot of factors gotta come together to make tyranny happen.

Route666
March 12, 2004, 07:12 AM
I notice in about half of the posts, people can't imagine how it isn't a right to own a gun. If you want a gun, you'll join a club, and do what's necessary, and you'll get it. Who gives a flying rats arse if some guy has to come around and look at your safe? He'll come over, knock, you'll exchange greetings, he'll (or she'll) look at the safe (and probably check you've left your guns with the action broken as well because a safe isn't good enough), if everything is dandy you say "Cop ya later!", he buggers off, and you go back to playing computer games in your air-conditioned rumpus room.

The thing you have to realise is that Australian laws are based around the fact that guns are for hunting, sport shooting, or security enforcement. You want to sport shoot, you join a club, etc, and get a gun eventually. Also, I'm glad I feel I don't need a gun. The only reason I'm going to get one is because I enjoy target shooting, and I want my own sports equipment to do it with. I'd rather have my own box or mouthgaurd than rent one :)There really is no need for any more lax regulations, and I think it is good to see laws being enforced. As for police resources being drawn away from "real crimes", there just aren't that many crimes committed to require every police person to be busting some murderer or drug dealer or theif, etc. If police were required to stop an outbreak of serial killings throughout a city or country I don't think they would be rationalising "Screw these killings, we have a audit to do!". Rather they are managing the police service more effectively, and actually doing things constantly, instead of just sitting around, wasting public dollars waiting for things to go pear-shaped.

I don't see any difference between the power company coming around and checking your meter and the police coming around and checking your firearm storage. The police are a service, like the power companies.

Onto another point, someone asked about what the requirements for storage are, on the first page.

Your firearms must be locked in a safe with the bolt or other part of action removed (or slide off of frame, etc) at all times, except when in use or transit. Now, cleaning the gun makes it in use, shooting it at a range makes it in use, and were you to be inspecting one the while time you were home every day for the rest of your life, it would also be in use. Say you need practice with removing a pistol from a holster, or reloading, that makes the gun in use. Say you want to train with the gun, and get used to the weight of it, then walking around at home with it on your belt would be ok, especially since the police are hardly going to find out you were doing it, and if they happen to come around when you have it out, you can either put it away before you let them in, or just say you're maintaining it (don't answer the door with it on your belt though, that would be stoopid).

Rebeldon
March 12, 2004, 07:19 AM
When I lived in Birmingham, I talked to some police officers who are as jealous of their right to keep and bear arms as anybody. I asked one, "If the City of Birmingham were to pass anti-gun laws, against Alabama's preemption laws and constitution, would you obey your bosses at city hall and enforce them, or what? Without even stratching his head he said "NO".

Let's say the government went tyrannically apesh*t and decided to comfiscate everybody's guns. What kind of cops would carry out this work? Or would they quit their jobs? In many states, especially in the South, I believe there would be mass resignations. Besides, it would be dangerous work. Here comes the police van carrying goons to take away Bubba's guns. They stop in front of Bubba's house, only Bubba's not there. Bubba's across the street on his neighbor's roof with his Remington 700 .270. How many members of the goon squad can Bubba take out before he's killed. Or what about Cooter, who turns his trailor into a giant bomb, and hides behind a tree with the detonator as the good squad approached his door. It would be a messy situation. It would cause a complete cultural collapse.

MicroBalrog
March 12, 2004, 07:20 AM
Route666 - You should visit Israel. They have seriously diverted MILITARY specops units to fight victimless crime.

Sleeping Dog
March 12, 2004, 07:40 AM
if the owner has a ... bad day they may well ... attack some of our police

Once in a while, I have a bad day. I might curse and fume, but I refrain from shooting anyone, or even kicking the dog.

But from that quote, the folks in OZ must have REALLY bad days. :)

Regards.

Route666
March 12, 2004, 07:47 AM
Microbalrog:

Israel? Are they misusing their police forces? What does that have to do with what I was talking about? I really don't understand what you were trying to say.

Sleeping Dog

I guess someone could possibly have a day that bad, but it could happen any day as well. I sure hope I don't ever have a day that bad lol.

threeseven
March 12, 2004, 07:51 AM
Route666, you just said exactly what I was trying to say. Well done. I'm pretty sure both of us are being completely misinterpreted, however.

MicroBalrog
March 12, 2004, 07:51 AM
Israel? Are they misusing their police forces? What does that have to do with what I was talking about? I really don't understand what you were trying to say.

I live in a country were guns used to be treated like in Australia today. It got worse. Let me tell you this: once gun ownership is no longer a right, it will almost always get worse.

Route666
March 12, 2004, 08:29 AM
I live in a country were guns used to be treated like in Australia today. It got worse. Let me tell you this: once gun ownership is no longer a right, it will almost always get worse.

Why? Just because it has happened before does not mean that it is the only outcome. Our countries are totally different, and so one could not hope to imagine what would happen here based on what happened elsewhere.

I don't think it ever was a right. Our country was built out of a prison. It definitely has never been a right to own a handgun, but right now is an easy time to own one. I grew up not caring that noone could buy handguns (or so I thought) in Australia. Now that I know people actually can, I'm excited, I'm now pistol shooting, and love it. I don't see why it should be a right, rights get abused, priveliges are somewhat respected because they can be taken away. On that note, I can actually go and buy a handgun right now. There is no law against buying ANYTHING in this country. There are laws against certain items coming into the country, and laws against possession of some items without certification, just like you're allowed to buy a car, but not allowed to drive until the authorities say you can drive, and give you a license to prove that.

MicroBalrog
March 12, 2004, 08:37 AM
There is no law against buying ANYTHING in this country

There are laws against certain items coming into the country, and laws against possession of some items without certification,


So you can buy a gun, but not possess it?:what:

Just because it has happened before does not mean that it is the only outcome.

Well, that has happened before in practically every country.

It has happened in australia (it has only gotten worse).

MicroBalrog
March 12, 2004, 08:41 AM
And it continues to get WORSE! (http://www.handgunbuyback.gov.au/)

Route666
March 12, 2004, 08:44 AM
Yep, you can buy a gun but not possess it. Just like you can buy a forklift for use in your company, but unless you have a forklift license, you personally can't use it, even if you own the company and the forklift.

Route666
March 12, 2004, 08:46 AM
worse? Do you see the dates on that page? That is talking about the current laws. Which I have been talking about.

Tomac
March 12, 2004, 09:21 AM
The problem w/"sensible" storage laws is who sets the standards for what qualifies as "safe storage"? All it takes is a stroke of a bureaucratric pen to require (for example) 3' of hardened steel plate buried at least 200' underground for "safe storage" and suddenly *nobody* can afford the new "safe storage" requirements. Police: "No safe storage for your firearms? Turn 'em in..."
Tomac

MicroBalrog
March 12, 2004, 09:23 AM
USE=/=possess

For example, I could take possession of the forklift, put it on my lawn and paint it pink. I just couldn't use it, that is, drive it on a public road (in some countries, I could use it on my own land.

MicroBalrog
March 12, 2004, 09:25 AM
Do you see the dates on that page

Yes. In the period 1984-2004, Australia gun laws were getting worse, not better.

Route666
March 12, 2004, 10:10 AM
For example, I could take possession of the forklift, put it on my lawn and paint it pink. I just couldn't use it, that is, drive it on a public road (in some countries, I could use it on my own land.

Yep, you could buy a gun, but not remove it from the dealer's premises without having a license for it, just like you could not drive the forklift away from the place where you bought it without a forklift license. Sure you can get someone else to ship it, or drive it, but forklifts are hardly the most common tool used in crimes, and so storage and the ability to acquire a firearm is more a matter of national defense than it would be for a forklift.

Yes. In the period 1984-2004, Australia gun laws were getting worse, not better.

I don't think so. How are they worse? Just because it requires more dedication to get a firearm doesn't make it worse. I would rather a bunch of people who were keen about firearms, how they work, who understand them the most from their superior amounts of research on the subject over just anyone who has a fleeting want for a gun, and doesn't really understand nor care about safe operation, and the effect a firearm can actually have.

Guns are as available in this country as they are useful. Most people who own them do so for recreation. Definitely not for defense, and not for hunting, and not for security jobs.

I don't see how the laws are "worse". Our vehicles have to be roadworthy, which means they are less likely to break and cause an accident. This must be checked before you register your car. They do the same with the potential owner of a gun. They make sure he's not going to break and cause harm, injury, or death. I've not heard anyone crack the sads over the constant vehicle emmisions checks in some states in the US (California and where else?), and that is the same as a cop checking your firearm storage.

The problem w/"sensible" storage laws is who sets the standards for what qualifies as "safe storage"? All it takes is a stroke of a bureaucratric pen to require (for example) 3' of hardened steel plate buried at least 200' underground for "safe storage" and suddenly *nobody* can afford the new "safe storage" requirements. Police: "No safe storage for your firearms? Turn 'em in..."

You say sensible, then you say legislation requiring a ludicrous amount of storage would get passed?!? The reasons for the buy backs were because of a massacre we had, not because of some obviously insensible sensible requirement. The storage requirements are like most US gun owners get anyway, to stop them getting stolen. THAT is the reason for the sensible storage law, to stop weapons getting into the wrong hands. NOT so you can't use it on someone. NOT so it is hard to use to defend yourself, because you are not allowed by law to use a firearm in self defense.

The reason the sensible storage requirement won't go to 3 foot of steel is the same reason people in the US buy safes for their guns.

The Real Hawkeye
March 12, 2004, 11:21 AM
Car emissions tests and car registration are not required in the U.S. to own or drive a car. You don't even need a license to drive a car here. It is only when you wish to drive on public roads that you need those things. If you own a thousand acre ranch, and your vehicle is just for travelling on your land, you don't need any government approval for anything car-related in the U.S.

MicroBalrog
March 12, 2004, 11:30 AM
How are they worse?

Add that to your "100 things you never expected to hear on THR" list.

Chip Dixon
March 12, 2004, 11:37 AM
-(quote)-
Guns are as available in this country as they are useful. Most people who own them do so for recreation. Definitely not for defense, and not for hunting, and not for security jobs.
-----

Are you serious? You mean there are no people over there who own guns just in case their country, or area of the country, decends into chaos? There aren't people who are concerned that they may need to defend themselves and family against certain death? No one is concerned at all that the government could be taken over by goons? Sure, it is very possible you may live your entire life without needing them. And most of the people I know who keep a stockpile of guns and ammo certainly don't want to have to use them. But you'd be naive to think that you will certainly never need them. It is the exception for a country to go on forever without any periods of war, rioting, or civil unrest. If your entire country is actually disarmed as you say, down to the recreational shooters, then whenever the tyrant or conqueror comes along, they will have quite the easy time. It'll be either servitude or out to the outback for you. That is, unless you're one of the bad guys... :scrutiny:

freewheeling
March 12, 2004, 12:00 PM
What gets me about this is that most of these guns are supposedly in remote and rural areas, and yet they're concerned about theft. Can't you just see urban criminals travelling out to a remote sheep station to swipe the guns? In lieu of being able to use the guns to defend against their theft I suppose the only real option you have is to put them in a safe, and then obviously the next step will be to have the authorities swipe them since they know precisely where they are, and they might as well for all the good they're doing anyone.

But Australians have always been a far different crowd than Americans. Their deference toward authority was, in large part, conditioned by the experience of being a penal colony under the assignment system, and there are stories of Aussie youth walking 150 miles to voluntarily appear for a court summons. They're great folks, and as English Settler Societies we share many values in common. But Americans, they aren't.

pax
March 12, 2004, 12:39 PM
Let's say the government went tyrannically apesh*t and decided to comfiscate everybody's guns. What kind of cops would carry out this work? Or would they quit their jobs? In many states, especially in the South, I believe there would be mass resignations.
Sure, lots of the good guys would quit rather than carry out such an order.

So who would be left on the police forces, and what would they do?

Sorry, I don't find much comfort in that line of reasoning.

pax

The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it. – John Hay

freewheeling
March 12, 2004, 01:08 PM
I think I've read through most of this thread, although it took awhile. First of all, a lot of the disagreement between the Kiwis and Aussies on one hand, and the Americans on the other, has to do with culture (and especially the origins of our two cultures: one based on "assignment" and the other on a Lockean revolution). And the frequency with which Americans raise the issue of tyranny is probably not very impressive to most other English Settler Societies, or the English themselves, because they've lived under such draconian gun laws for a long time and don't really appear to be in much danger of becoming a Big Brother state.

I started out as a gun owner and user in my youth, became anti-gun as an adult, and recently changed my mind again. And perhaps the reason I changed my mind has some relevance to this discussion. I'm not actually too concerned that the US will become a tyranny, or even a totalitarian state (which would be a lot worse, btw). The odds of that are nil, even if we all lived under gun laws like those that govern the District of Columbia, or the UK. Life would still be worth living, and we'd continue to enjoy enormous freedoms compared to tyrannical and totalitarian governments, or even compared to authoritarian governments in the "southern cone."

But here's the rub, and what compelled me to change my mind. The social contract implied by the protectionist parent state was completely shattered on Sept. 11, 2001. It wasn't shattered when the passengers of the hijacked planes sat meekly in their seats with trust that the "authorities" would somehow resolve things, while the Qaeda pilots flew directly into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. That was certainly when the doctrine failed, but the paradigm was shattered in the skies over Pennsylvania when a small group of passengers decided not to sit meekly in their seats.

oldfart
March 12, 2004, 01:21 PM
This whole disscussion seems to revolve around the old "rights" vs "privileges" question. We debate it among ourselves here in the US so I suppose it's reasonable to assume it's equally debateable in the international arena.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

These words are pretty well known here in the US but mat be a bit less so in OZ. They come from the second paragraph of the "Unanimous Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies." They started a war once and began the unraveling of the British Empire.

Notice that it says "all men." Not just the men of the American colonies or the men of the British Empire, but ALL men-- even the ones in Australia and New Zealand. Further, notice the claim to RIGHTS.
Not privileges or licenses or concessions, but rights completely beyond the contol of government. It goes on to list three of those rights; "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Since these "rights' are beyond the control of government they cannot-- except in extreme circumstances such as being lawfully imprisoned-- be taken from you. You can, however, give them up. Many people have done so by simply failing to stand up to whatever entity is trying to take them.

So, if these 'rights' actually exist there must be supplementary rights to support them. For instance; the right to life is of no value unless you also have a right to defend it. Ergo, you have a 'right,' endowed by your creator (not your governemnt) to defend your life!

If a bad guy points a gun at you and gives you every indication that he intends to kill you-- what do you do? Call the police? If you have a gun and you choose not to shoot him because of the possibility that your government might prosecute you, you have essentially given up your right to life. Many of us have a saying; "better to be judged by twelve than carried by six."

So, even in Australia, you have a divine right to defend yourself with whatever tools are best suited for the job. Sure, you may get slapped in jail for doing so, but you'll be alive and able to file appeals. There is no appeal from death.

The Real Hawkeye
March 12, 2004, 02:03 PM
Well said, old fart.

tcsd1236
March 12, 2004, 02:17 PM
"NOT so it is hard to use to defend yourself, because you are not allowed by law to use a firearm in self defense."

Why is a firearm, the most useful tool for defending oneself across the spectrum of different age groups, physical ability groups,sex, etc, specifically named as a no-no for using in self-defense? Do they assume that no law abiding person would ever have a legitmate self-defense situation in which the firearm is the best tool available?

The Real Hawkeye
March 12, 2004, 03:09 PM
It's not that. England, and recent offshoots, have decided that the criminal's life is more valuable than that of their innocent victims. I mean that sincerely. It has nothing to do with believing that guns are not effective means of self-defense. To me, this indicates that they have gone completely mad as a culture. It's truly frightening. :eek:

freewheeling
March 12, 2004, 03:34 PM
To me, this indicates that they have gone completely mad as a culture. It's truly frightening.

Well, it's at least something that's potentially self-correcting, unlike same-sex marriage. We make that mistake and it's a little like the consequences of a light-hearted brain surgery. The miscreants in the case of the English self-protection paradigm (or lack of it) are recognizably anti-social "clockwork orange" types. Plenty of time to reverse direction, and there's even a political will in that direction (much as it's ignored). SSM would literally change the brain chemistry of a generation. Heck, it would change the basic neurological wiring. And there's no evidence that it would change for the better. (Sorry about veering. Just forget I said anything.)

Radagast
March 12, 2004, 06:49 PM
Just a few thoughts.
I'm an Aussie, I represented IPSC at the ministerial level in my home state when the latest round of confiscation (handguns over .38 cal are banned, revolvers with barrell length less than 4 inches are banned, pistols with barrel lenghts less than 4.7 inches are banned, magazines with capacity greater than 10 rounds are banned).

At one of the ministerial meetings the Sporting Shooters Association's representative brought up the arbitrary application of safe storage laws. They had just had to fund a legal defence for a member who's safe wasn't bolted down. As the safe weighed more than 150kg it didn't have to be legally bolted down. The inspecting officer charged him and siezed his firearms and licence. The gun owner then had to get some mates to manhandle it out of the house and down to a public weigh bridge to get proof of it's weight.

After that meeting I attended an indoor range to brief the members there on what was occurring on the legislation. They had the local licencing sargeant in there talking about 'safe storage.'

Lo and behold, it was the same cop. He brought up the story and was pissed that the SSAA had helped that shooter out.

He held up the Firearms Act and Regulations and stated that this wasn't the law, that what he said was the law, because if the shooters didn't comply with what he wanted he would charge them. He also made it quite clear that he was paid to go to court and his legal representation was as well. The shooters would have to pay for their own and take time off work, so it would be simpler to comply with him. Of course, if he charged them then their firearms are confiscated on the spot and their licence cancelled, so they have to go through the six month process of obtaininga new licence if they are cleared. The licence may not be reissued anyway of the police decide he is not a fit and proper person to own a firearm (having resisted the licencing section this is a strong possibility). There is no appeal from this either.

The police are now 'auditing' firearms when they do an inspection in other words they are physically inspecting all firearms in possession to check their records. The legislation only allows for an inspection of security arrangements, so an illegal search is being carried out over 190,000 times in NSW alone.

Under the new legislation I was forced to surrender, under threat of 14 years jail, 1 x S&W640, 1 x S&W60, 1 x Glock 19, 1 x Para Ordnance P16-40, 1 x S&W 66. 1 x Beretta Tomcat, 1 x Beretta Elite II, 1 x Bul M5 and around 50 hi cap magazines. None had been used to threaten another.

I was forced to sell off three ruger .22s because I could not meet the competition requirements for them.

The cost of insurance for firearms on a business licence has now exceeded $28000 per year, so the few that can justify a firearm for business reasons generally cannot afford the licence requirements.

If you are a friend of the police commissioner or wealthy you can still carry a firearm. The law specifically states that 'licences' cannot be issued for self defence. This dosn't stop the commissioner issuing 'permits' to those with connections. Semantics is a wonderful thing.

9 police in NSW in recent years have lost their firearms or melted them after sticking them in the oven at home (no safe installed), none have been charged.

Australia's largest Media owner and richest man, Kerry Packer, had his Glock stolen form his desk. It was on his self defence permit. He surrendered his rifle licence in return for not being charged. AFAIK he still has the pistol permit.

One of the police officers running the handgun confiscation van was asking shooters if they were surrendering everything and getting out of the sport. Those who told him they where buying new guns were not given the full value for their firearms.
I know an army Colonel who was given double the value on his by the same guy, because he was involved in training the SPG (SWAT team).

Self defence is a the only truly valid reason to own a firearm, even if the law dosn't allow it. There have been 9 shootings within a mile radius of my house here in Sydney in the last 5 years. I live in an expensive suburb. All of the shops on the main strip have been the victims of armed robberys in the last two years. My car was broken into 6 times in six weeks. The local police will not respond to shot's fired.
I have had to chase a man out of my house at 2 AM, he was trying to get into my sisters bedroom.

Sports can be restricted if they create a danger, just as boxing is regulated. The means to defend life and liberty are a different matter again. Which is why the Government and media are working hard to seperate the idea of self defence and defence of property and loved ones from firearms.

My fellow Australian's who feel that the Government has a right to enter your home, to search and sieze your property, to assume that you have no right to defend yourself or your home, to count the wealthy or politically connected as more important or valuable than you and yours, go and lick the boots that hold you down. Just remember, a cur can propitiate to it's master, but it will still be kicked when it's owner feels like doing so.

Ken Robson

Route666
March 12, 2004, 06:52 PM
Are you serious? You mean there are no people over there who own guns just in case their country, or area of the country, decends into chaos? There aren't people who are concerned that they may need to defend themselves and family against certain death? No one is concerned at all that the government could be taken over by goons?

There may be some, I don't know, but they probably joined a gun club, and have guns. Not many people want guns here, probably a smaller percentage than in the US, and since our country has about 10 times less people, then that amount is rather small. I would be ok with self defense being a reason to own a gun here, but I don't think it is necessary.

Sure, it is very possible you may live your entire life without needing them. And most of the people I know who keep a stockpile of guns and ammo certainly don't want to have to use them. But you'd be naive to think that you will certainly never need them. It is the exception for a country to go on forever without any periods of war, rioting, or civil unrest. If your entire country is actually disarmed as you say, down to the recreational shooters, then whenever the tyrant or conqueror comes along, they will have quite the easy time. It'll be either servitude or out to the outback for you. That is, unless you're one of the bad guys...

I'm not sure what world you live in, but the threat of invasion here is rather small. Couple that with the fact that we have a good army, not the largest, but certainly very good, a large police force (who are also people with guns), a percentage of recreational shooters, security personell, and hunters with guns, and they won't just own one either, if you own guns, you own LOTS of guns, and so can give them out in a time of need, and of course allies, we seem pretty covered. Allies are a by-product of the maturity of the world, and so is the risk of invasion by some group of neanderthals.

Oh and out to the outback wouldn't worry me, I grew up in the bush, I loved it, so quiet, and SOOO many less idiots (not meaning you, meaning knobs here).

Why is a firearm, the most useful tool for defending oneself across the spectrum of different age groups, physical ability groups,sex, etc, specifically named as a no-no for using in self-defense? Do they assume that no law abiding person would ever have a legitmate self-defense situation in which the firearm is the best tool available?

I think the reason is derived from the nature of storage. Since it must be locked up and dismantled (a little) then reasonably using it as a self defense tool is pretty hard, as it takes too long to unlock, find bullets, put the gun together, etc. So it would most likely just be the breach of firearms laws if you did use it, because you must not have been storing it properly. You may be able to however argue that you had just finished oiling it, and had time to go load a mag to protect yourself, but more than likely it won't work. If the situation is life and death, and you can reasonably get your gun working quick enough, I WOULD DO IT! The saying "It is better to be tryed by 12 than carried by 6" is true to me as well. The chance of a life-threatening situation erupting in Australia is small, and is most likely a by-product of your own arrogance and stupidity, in which case, natural selection may be in order for both you and your killer. The chance of being able to get your gun working once you realised that you're in said situation is another multiple of very small.

MicroBalrog
March 12, 2004, 06:56 PM
At one of the ministerial meetings the Sporting Shooters Association's representative brought up the arbitrary application of safe storage laws. They had just had to fund a legal defence for a member who's safe wasn't bolted down. As the safe weighed more than 150kg it didn't have to be legally bolted down. The inspecting officer charged him and siezed his firearms and licence. The gun owner then had to get some mates to manhandle it out of the house and down to a public weigh bridge to get proof of it's weight.


Here's your reasonable regulation!:D

In your own words...

I think the reason is derived from the nature of storage. Since it must be locked up and dismantled (a little) then reasonably using it as a self defense tool is pretty hard, as it takes too long to unlock, find bullets, put the gun together, etc. So it would most likely just be the breach of firearms laws if you did use it, because you must not have been storing it properly. You may be able to however argue that you had just finished oiling it, and had time to go load a mag to protect yourself, but more than likely it won't work

And that's REASONABLE regulation? :confused:

Route666
March 12, 2004, 07:16 PM
Radagast, you need to report such offenders like that officer, if he doesn't know the law, he shouldn't be an officer. Get an inquiry going. You have some evidence to back it up, the previous event with the unbolted safe. If you don't report him, don't complain about it.

And that's REASONABLE regulation?

I find it reasonable in that it is legislation, so if you don't obey it, expect to lose your guns. I don't make the laws, I just live happily. Unlike some, I don't bitch and winge about not being able to own a gun just for the sake of it. Sure I'd like that too, but this way suits me as well. You guys will never be satisfied with any laws, it seems to be some people's nature to constantly see the bad in everything and not appreciate the good.

MicroBalrog
March 12, 2004, 07:22 PM
Radagast, you need to report such offenders like that officer, if he doesn't know the law, he shouldn't be an officer. Get an inquiry going. You have some evidence to back it up, the previous event with the unbolted safe. If you don't report him, don't complain about it.

Back in the 1970's IIRC my father still lived in the USSR. Anyways, he got beaten up by two KGB "officers". Suffice it to say it hurt. A lot. After a friend of Dad's discovered him in his freshly beaten up state, he (the friend) said: "This is horrible! We should file a complain with the Regional Committee! These men must get punished!"

Dad always smiles when telling that particular part of the story...:D

The Real Hawkeye
March 12, 2004, 07:22 PM
Let's face it folks. The U.S. is the last best hope for liberty. If we go down the drain, it's all over. Most of these guys (I except Radagast and Micro) don't even know what the word means. It's like they have a mental block on the subject. Probably no point in talking to them about it. The whole notion seems to be missing in them.

MicroBalrog
March 12, 2004, 07:23 PM
You guys will never be satisfied with any laws

Of course not. Neither was Martin Luther King, Thomas Jefferson, or Ben-Gurion.

Deadman
March 12, 2004, 07:35 PM
I fail to understand why people think that law, government opinion or society's opinion is more important than their right to self defence.

That doesn't mean that I, as a licenced firearm owner in Australia, do not keep my firearms secured. However ( as unlikely as it would be ) if my life is threatend, or if the lives and safety of my family is threatened, I won't let a 'law' prevent me from doing what I deem necessary to stop that threat.

Route666
March 12, 2004, 07:39 PM
Dad always smiles when telling that particular part of the story...

Yes it is good when things get put right.

Of course not.

I prefer to get over it, and be happy, but whatever works for you...

Let's face it folks. The U.S. is the last best hope for liberty. If we go down the drain, it's all over. Most of these guys (I except Radagast and Micro) don't even know what the word means. It's like they have a mental block on the subject. Probably no point in talking to them about it. The whole notion seems to be missing in them.

Liberty:

The condition of being free from restriction or control.
The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor.

By definition, the US' liberties are already down the drain. You have laws, or rather "restrictions" or "controls".

Route666
March 12, 2004, 07:43 PM
That doesn't mean that I, as a licenced firearm owner in Australia, do not keep my firearms secured. However ( as unlikely as it would be ) if my life is threatend, or if the lives and safety of my family is threatened, I won't let a 'law' prevent me from doing what I deem necessary to stop that threat.

That's what I believe.

MeekandMild
March 12, 2004, 07:45 PM
Australia was founded as a penal colony and it appears that the government has never forgotten it. AFAIK it is one of the 'traditions' of English law that children can inherit the punishments of their parents. I think in the US that encumbrance only applies to laws pertaining to architects.

Yes but they're far behind the Workers' Paradise in Communist China. Despite gun control, some "peasants" still have black powder shotguns. In the Phillipines, Brasil, Pakistan (and Chicago?) I hear you can buy an illegal weapon which is entirely handmade. The Pakis and Brazilians are so good their guns rival factory made, but the market is so good in the PI people will accept inferior weapons.

MicroBalrog
March 12, 2004, 07:46 PM
Liberty = Right to do as you wish as long as you do not harm others (definition from French Declaration of the Rights of Man), and you're right
when saying the US isn't totally free. But it's more free than any other nation on the planet, by a looong stretch.

America is a place where people don't put you in prison for having "six handguns and seven rifles with telescopic scopes", don't search your son's schoolbag when he goes to school, don't beat you up when they didn't like your testimony at a trial of some dissenter, don't anally probe 9-year old tourists and then deport them, and DON'T go around people's houses checking if their gun is "stored right". That's what liberty is about.

And this is why I hope to one day become an American.

Route666
March 12, 2004, 07:53 PM
But why is it such an infringement on your liberties to have your guns checked? If you're doing things legally, who cares? I don't see it as an infringment to have another person come to my house and check to make sure I'm abiding by a law. The law is already there, infringing my liberty. Being checked to make sure I'm abiding this law in no more of an infringement on my liberties. It just isn't a big deal, it's just like having your power meter checked, except they bill you for that one no matter what the outcome lol.

MicroBalrog
March 12, 2004, 07:58 PM
But why is it such an infringement on your liberties to have your guns checked?

My problem is not with having people to come and check if I have my guns locked up or not.

My problem is with having a law FORCING me to lock my gun up in the exact particular way chosen for me for someone else.


I am ME. The situation in my house is UNIQUE, as I am UNIQUE, and I demand the right to store my guns whichever way I see a proper, and not have it decided by someone else, regardless of what actually may be best for ME in MY house with MY guns.

P95Carry
March 12, 2004, 08:04 PM
The law is already there The ''law'' is itself the infringment .... of what should be normal rights for a trusted law abiding citizen. As we often say .. why should you trust a government when it obviously does NOT trust you .... that is why ''subject'' status is evident rather than citizen.

A government should be there to serve .. these days that seems to have flown out the window .... but more so some places than others. Plus ... the more laws they make the easier it is to make more and more people criminals .. again, it is all about ''control''.

The inspection of storage facilities is merely the manifestation of the infringing law .. but seemingly it is being taken too far sometimes. Most of us have nothing to hide .. and are law abiding but should not need ''inspections'' to have to prove that.

It is in part allied with ''no cause'' traffic stops ...

''We are just checking. You have nothing to fear if you are legal. Papers please''.

freewheeling
March 12, 2004, 08:16 PM
And that's REASONABLE regulation?

I find it reasonable in that it is legislation, so if you don't obey it, expect to lose your guns.

Remember folks, the event that defined the Australian character was not a revolution from England, but Gallipoli. The fact that the above sort of circular logic never quite finds its way back to individual sovereignty may be understandable, in that context. Gallipoli was undeniably heroic, and monumentally foolish.


Let's face it folks. The U.S. is the last best hope for liberty. If we go down the drain, it's all over.

I visited Seymour Martin Lipset (the author of The First New Nation and American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword) in the hospital shortly after a massive stroke had severely crippled him. He hadn't spoken more than one word at a time in several months. He was staring intently at an image of the World Trade Center collapsing into dust on the TV, and said so clearly he sounded like his old self: "They know that if they defeat the US, no one stands in their way. That's why we are their first priority."

Another element of this that simply hasn't sunk in with our Aussie friends, and many others, is that assuminng the responsibility for the means for your own self defense as well as the means for contributing to the last line of defense of your civilization--bearing that burden on your own shoulders--changes the very nature of your relationship with the civilization you live within. In short, it makes you the sort of citizen who honors liberty with enough passion that you will stand in the breach, and refuse to let the abomination pass, and will also take the initiative to avoid pointless sacrifice. This is what the founders meant by "a well-ordered militia." Had they merely been concerned with "training," that could have been accomplished by a mere statute. What they were interested in was creating the only type of person that the tyrant and the criminal really fear.

Route666
March 12, 2004, 08:58 PM
I am ME. The situation in my house is UNIQUE, as I am UNIQUE, and I demand the right to store my guns whichever way I see a proper, and not have it decided by someone else, regardless of what actually may be best for ME in MY house with MY guns.

That is true. I agree that I should be allowed to store my guns however I want in my house. Having a law saying you must store them securely isn't all that bad though, as I would rather lock them up, so they don't get stolen or tinkered with.

In short, it makes you the sort of citizen who honors liberty with enough passion that you will stand in the breach, and refuse to let the abomination pass, and will also take the initiative to avoid pointless sacrifice.

I've never had the chance to vote on any regulation passing, everything gets decided in the parliment, by all the pollies. Yes it is a little crap, having no automatic weapons, etc, but you work with what you have, and I don't really feel automatic weapons should be made available to the public.

Oh, and about the police checking you're abiding the storage law, it really is the only way they can uphold that law. If they didn't check, that law may as well not exist, as there is no way to know if it is being abided by. (abid by?) I don't think it's that silly of a law, as most people would do it anyway. This just takes the guesswork out of whether or not guns are going to get stolen.

MicroBalrog
March 12, 2004, 09:05 PM
Having a law saying you must store them securely isn't all that bad though, as I would rather lock them up, so they don't get stolen or tinkered with.

And I'd prefer them not being disassembled when I keep them.

I've never had the chance to vote on any regulation passing, everything gets decided in the parliment, by all the pollies.

MLK never was a Congress member. He made a difference. You can, too.



This just takes the guesswork out of whether or not guns are going to get stolen.

Really?:what:

If they didn't check, that law may as well not exist, as there is no way to know if it is being abided by.

Exactly. That's what's problematic with such laws. That they enable people to poke around other people's houses to check if their gun safe is bolted down.

Now, why not check register your adult magazine collection? (if you have one)? I mean, you don't somebody to have a bunch of Hustlers lying around where kids will find them?

and I don't really feel automatic weapons should be made available to the public.

I think there never was any rational proof that they should be banned.

Route666
March 12, 2004, 09:15 PM
And I'd prefer them not being disassembled when I keep them.

Most guns can be re-assembled rather quickly. They don't have to be totally dis-assembled, and remember, this law only really applies when there is someone making sure it is being upheld. (once every blue moon)

MLK never was a Congress member. He made a difference. You can, too.

How?

Now, why not check register your adult magazine collection? (if you have one)? I mean, you don't somebody to have a bunch of Hustlers lying around where kids will find them?

Because pornography is more natural than shooting yourself dead. I wouldn't mind if my kids read porn mags. Maybe not hustler (I've never read it but I assume it's one of the X rateds?) but there's nothing wrong with learning about life. I see your point though, but guns have potential to cause much more severe, irreversable damage than boobies.

Stand_Watie
March 12, 2004, 09:23 PM
Microbalrog

And this is why I hope to one day become an American

Good. We need about 100 million more just like you. Let us know when you decide to apply so we can write our representatives and see if we can get you bumped to the front of the line.

Radagast

Just remember, a cur can propitiate to it's master, but it will still be kicked when it's owner feels like doing so.

Nicely said.

GoRon
March 12, 2004, 09:32 PM
But why is it such an infringement on your liberties to have your guns checked? If you're doing things legally, who cares? I don't see it as an infringment to have another person come to my house and check to make sure I'm abiding by a law. The law is already there, infringing my liberty. Being checked to make sure I'm abiding this law in no more of an infringement on my liberties. It just isn't a big deal, it's just like having your power meter checked, except they bill you for that one no matter what the outcome lol.


There seems to be confusion between liberties and privilages. You have been granted a privilage, we are trying to hold on to our rights.

The power of the state is violence. If you refuse to obey a "benign" rule, law or ordinance long enough somebody with a gun from the government will come and take you away.

The fewer laws regulating your rights the freer you are.

Priviliges are granted by man, rights are from God and/or are part of our very human nature.

WonderNine
March 12, 2004, 09:36 PM
What in the world is wrong with sensible storage laws?

Define "sensible".

Unless you want to go out, buy me a safe and drag it in here for me, I'm not sure what your point is. And what good is a gun if it's stored away?

MicroBalrog
March 12, 2004, 09:43 PM
Most guns can be re-assembled rather quickly. They don't have to be totally dis-assembled.

OK, ever tried to do that when somebody is out to kill you?

How?

http://www.jpfo.org/

http://www.seangabb.co.uk/pamphlet/guns3.htm

MLK made a difference.

Sean Gabb makes a difference.

Oleg makes a difference.

I can make a difference, and so can you. It doesn't take a million-dollar NRA budget - but it takes believing you can make a difference. As the old Israeli song goes: "You and I will change the world, just me and you, and then everyone else will join in..."

You can make a difference, Route. Just pitch in. There's an empty space in the ranks of the freedom-fighters, where you are supposed to be. It is all we need to win the war for freedom - people like you and me must realize they can make a difference.

Because once the gun-controllers, the freedom-haters, the politicians persuade you that you can make no difference - they have won. Once they can persuade Team Freedom not to get out on the playing field, Team Politician just wins on a technicality.

"Don't say you don exist. You Do."

Crikey
March 12, 2004, 10:09 PM
I moved from Sydney to Texas. I have a CHL. My family and I are safer here than in Sydney as far as I am concerned in part due to the difference in gun laws.

At the time I left Sydney, 'home invasion' crimes were getting to the point of being almost common place. You don't have too much of that in Texas because it is a good way to get shot.

Cheers,
Mike.

BHPshooter
March 12, 2004, 10:28 PM
I've not heard anyone crack the sads over the constant vehicle emmisions checks in some states in the US (California and where else?), and that is the same as a cop checking your firearm storage.

Come to Utah. Many people refuse to live in Salt Lake City since they instituted emissions checks, so they came to my city (Tooele, pronounced Ta - Willa)

Many of you who argue, "Why is it such a big deal?" just don't get it.

Why is it a big deal? Because the natural form of government is Tyranny. To prevent that, one must ALWAYS be vigilant, and that means standing up anytime there is a loss of liberty to you or your neighbor.

Give government an inch and it'll tread right over you. It's proven. It's happening worldwide, even in America.

And this is why I hope to one day become an American.

That is quite possibly the most touching thing I've ever heard. You are an American my friend, if only at heart.

I want you (and everyone like you) standing on the same soil I am -- What can I do to expedite the emigration process? Need a place to live?

It is entirely possible that you know more about coming to America than I do... If that's true, please PM me about it. I'd like to learn more about helping you.

Because pornography is more natural than shooting yourself dead. I wouldn't mind if my kids read porn mags. Maybe not hustler (I've never read it but I assume it's one of the X rateds?) but there's nothing wrong with learning about life. I see your point though, but guns have potential to cause much more severe, irreversable damage than boobies.

That HAS to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.

Like it or not, violence is a part of life. It was there in the beginning and it is still among us. Pornography has not always been around, nor is it natural. Sexual activity is natural, but two people in consentual activities and dispersing a video for millions to see are two different things.

And as for porn being harmless, maybe you should read up on the likes of Ted Bundy.



I now believe that the love of Liberty is exclusively an American Phenomenon.

Wes

MicroBalrog
March 12, 2004, 10:34 PM
I want you (and everyone like you) standing on the same soil I am -- What can I do to expedite the emigration process? Need a place to live

First I need to complete my service. Then I need a BA. Now, circa 2010...:banghead:

Well, by 2010, you'll have a Dem president who'll open the borders and I'll simply get on the Tel-Aviv-NYC-NH plane. :D

Pornography has not always been around, nor is it natural

Actually, porn was around since at least Ancient Rome.

And as for porn being harmless, maybe you should read up on the likes of Ted Bundy.

It has never been proven that porn is related to violence. Some scientists do claim there's a reverse relationship.:cool:


P.S. This godless traitorous liberal thanks you for the invitation.:)

The Real Hawkeye
March 12, 2004, 11:16 PM
And this is why I hope to one day become an American.Micro, as far as I'm concerned, you are welcome in the United States. We need more citizens like you here.

freewheeling
March 12, 2004, 11:21 PM
quote:In short, it makes you the sort of citizen who honors liberty with enough passion that you will stand in the breach, and refuse to let the abomination pass, and will also take the initiative to avoid pointless sacrifice.



I've never had the chance to vote on any regulation passing, everything gets decided in the parliment, by all the pollies. Yes it is a little crap, having no automatic weapons, etc, but you work with what you have, and I don't really feel automatic weapons should be made available to the public.


I'm talking about the War Against Totalitarianism 3.x (inappropriately called the "war on terror" or "the war on terrorism"). To the extent that you aren't involved, and leave everything up to others to prosecute you're... well... getting in the way. I don't know how else to put it. Well, how about this: the enemy isn't worried about you. I want the enemy to worry about me. I want him to know that there is simply no way I'll allow him to breath the same air as the rest of us if I can help it. I won't support, or stand for, any withdrawal from anywhere. I won't complain about any cost. I'll live without the friendship of the French or the Germans, because their opinions mean absolutely nothing to me. I don't expect my government to do it all. Indeed, I expect them to make incredibly stupid mistakes, but I expect the will to remain intact and 90% of success will come from the people implementing the general policies, as is the case in Iraq.

If you want a really good read, about the right and wrong way to set things up, check out this stellar article by Steven Den Beste (http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2004/03/Structuralsolutions.shtml) on the Iraqi Constitution.

Rebeldon
March 12, 2004, 11:24 PM
One thing some of you Australians (and some Americans too) need to understand is that freedom IS dangerous. There is a difference in the world view of a free man versus the world view of a subject. The way a freeman reacts to a "massacre" with a gun is that he goes out and buys a gun to protect himself. The way a subject reacts to a "massacre" with a gun is to cry like a baby to the government to make a new gun prohibition laws to protect him.

The desire for freedom may require you to defend yourself or your country. You expect your young soldiers to go into harm's way to protect your freedom but you will surrender your freedom for your own safety. Your government promises you safety by prohibiting you from providing yourself any means of security. Safety is the removal of a danger. On the other hand, security is adding protection against that danger. The danger is the fact that in any society where humans are present, there will always be those who will prey upon the innocent. Take away all the guns and people will still be robbed, murdered and raped. So taking away guns only gives you an illusion of safety. You have no control over who the criminal will rob, murder or rape. You are at the mercy of the criminal to pick somebody else. Can you call that freedom? However, owning a firearm for your personal defense, that you can carry concealed, is a form a security that you can control. A free man has that choice. You do not.

And let's talk about firearms safety. Why is it that people are not trusted with safe handling of the own firearms but anybody can get a driver's license? An automobile is a far more destructive device than any handgun or rifle. More people die from automobile accidents. If I wanted to, I could drive downtown in my Chevy Silverado and mow down fifty people on the sidewalk at lunch hour. And why don't these auditors get into your car with you and test your driving skills once a year? Why are you so obsessed with how ammo is stored when wearing a helmet in your car would greatly reduce the risk of a fatal traffic accident? Did you know that 90% of all felonies involve automobiles? Why aren't convicted felons prohibited from driving cars? But those are cars and not guns. Guns are evil. :rolleyes:

And speaking of massacres, Governments have massacred millions of disarmed people within their own borders, but the Australains are willing to let their government disarm them because of a few crazed gunmen.

Route666
March 12, 2004, 11:25 PM
Thanks for the links MicroBalrog.

BHPshooter
March 12, 2004, 11:37 PM
First I need to complete my service. Then I need a BA. Now, circa 2010...

Aw, man. That sucks.
How long do you have left in military service?
They require you to have a Bachelor's degree to get in? Why on earth would they do that?

P.S. This godless traitorous liberal thanks you for the invitation.

You're welcome here anytime. Besides, it's always fun to show somebody new the finer points of American life. ;)

Wes

Route666
March 12, 2004, 11:41 PM
The way a freeman reacts to a "massacre" with a gun is that he goes out and buys a gun to protect himself. The way a subject reacts to a "massacre" with a gun is to cry like a baby to the government to make a new gun prohibition laws to protect him.

You see, I didn't get a choice as to whether the guns were banned, it just happened. There was no vote, the politicians just made it so.

Why is it that people are not trusted with safe handling of the own firearms but anybody can get a driver's license?

Well here you have to be competent with a car to get a license for it, so not anyone can get a license.

To the extent that you aren't involved, and leave everything up to others to prosecute you're... well... getting in the way.

Are you involved? Are you doing any more than me?

freewheeling
March 12, 2004, 11:43 PM
The danger is the fact that in any society where humans are present, there will always be those who will prey upon the innocent. Take away all the guns and people will still be robbed, murdered and raped. So taking away guns only gives you an illusion of safety. You have no control over who the criminal will rob, murder or rape. You are at the mercy of the criminal to pick somebody else.

A quasi-religious/ethnic cult in northern India, from which we derive the word "thug" (pronounced in Hindi "tugg"), were responsible for murdering hundreds of thousands of people, not a single one of which did they kill with a gun or a knife. They strangled all of their victims with a knotted scarf.

Route666
March 13, 2004, 12:54 AM
Ok, I've been getting a little worked up and have been argueing points I don't really believe just for sake of argument. I'm not saying I disband everything I've said.

I was getting P.O.ed because it was sounding to me like "You're not a free man, your laws are crap, your country is crap." because of the different way guns are portrayed here. Most of the gun owners I have met love shooting, but don't want their guns to protect themselves, they don't see a need for it. That, and the fact that at the moment, it isn't that bad to get into guns really bothered me.

I for one would love living in the US, especially for the gun reason, but also I bet I would get a lot further than here (work wise).

I agree with everyone that the laws are pretty much BS, and we should be allowed to protect ourselves, and I am doing what I can to help the cause here, http://members.ozemail.com.au/~confiles/ is a good resource for Australian fight back, and apparently I'm doing well according to his site. I'm a member of the SSAA, the most politically heavy association there is, and am on my way to buying my own guns, which I will buy as many as I can when I have the money (if I like them).

I'm just not going to sit here going :fire: because I can't carry a gun, I'm going to enjoy doing what I can do now, and keep fighting for better rights.

freewheeling
March 13, 2004, 02:08 AM
Ok, I've been getting a little worked up and have been argueing points I don't really believe just for sake of argument.

I apologize for being a bit more snarky than I needed to be to make my points. I very much enjoyed visiting Oz, and thought Robert Hughes' book The Fatal Shore was one of the best books I've ever read. Another thing most Americans don't comprehend about Oz, with all the hullabaloo about the outback and such, is that it's probably the most urbanized population on earth. It's really pretty sad the way the population was hoodwinked into this gun ban thing, so you're going to be the test case in how to undo something like that. How to "unring the bell." Maybe you can get Dame Edna to start packing?

Route666
March 13, 2004, 02:18 AM
:) I've been a bit of a ***** too, so I also apologise, I don't want enemies, I want friends.

The first thing we should be doing if we want guns to be freed is to get along.

I think this discussion went way off topic too. oops.

fallingblock
March 13, 2004, 04:42 AM
Boris, I agree with the others, get yourself to the U.S....
We need you there, we can still prevail if there are enough of us.


Route666:
************************************************************
"I for one would love living in the US, especially for the gun reason, but also I bet I would get a lot further than here (work wise)."
************************************************************

Take it from someone who has lived and worked in both nations. The U.S. still allows you to keep more of your earnings than Australia does.


************************************************************
I agree with everyone that the laws are pretty much BS, and we should be allowed to protect ourselves, and I am doing what I can to help the cause here, http://members.ozemail.com.au/~confiles/ is a good resource for Australian fight back, and apparently I'm doing well according to his site.
************************************************************

Good On'ya, Mate! Here's one we just started up a while back, hava a look and tell us what you think. Just because Little Johnnie Howard has all the money and power on his side, doesn't mean we can't still resist:D

http://www.c-l-a-s-s.net/


************************************************************
"I don't want enemies, I want friends.

The first thing we should be doing if we want guns to be freed is to get along."
************************************************************


Welcome to THR, one of the best places to do just that!

MicroBalrog
March 13, 2004, 04:53 AM
They require you to have a Bachelor's degree to get in? Why on earth would they do that?

No, but it's possible for me to get a degree at the best universities of the Middle East at a quarter of the price I'd pay for Harvard. :) Government subsidies...

fallingblock
March 13, 2004, 05:22 AM
C'mon, Boris....I made it through the "Pay-as-you-go" U.S tertiary education system with scholarships and grants covering a big chunk of the tuition fees, so can you.;)

If you wait six more years to get to the U.S., those durn Democrats will have outlawed everything that goes 'bang'.:eek:

Besides, those exploding Palestinians are going to be a problem for a while.

atek3
March 13, 2004, 05:46 AM
I don't really feel automatic weapons should be made available to the public.

Sheeple-alert. And I talk a lotta trash about how unfree the US is, how the DEA, ATF, and IRS are a bunch of JBT's. *** was I thinking. Compared to Austrialia this country is like some 'crazy' libertarian utopia. Where I can buy a gun with...gasp... No sporting purpose. I can walk around my house with a holster and if a goblin breaks in, ask him to leave or face certain consequences.

If people like route666 don't seem to understand. As long as there is ONE fatality related to firearms in Oz or NZ per year the hoplophobes will continue to impose more onerous regulations. Your handguns aren't safe, your target rifles aren't safe, eventually your airguns will be banned too.
It's so depressing.

atek3

MicroBalrog
March 13, 2004, 06:20 AM
C'mon, Boris....I made it through the "Pay-as-you-go" U.S tertiary education system with scholarships and grants covering a big chunk of the tuition fees, so can you.

I checked. The best I can get is enroll in Brandyce Uni, Mass, and then I need to have at least a year in Jerusalem Uni first.

Besides, emigrating from Israel to Massachusets is self-defeating.

Route666
March 13, 2004, 08:02 AM
Thanks for the extra links fallingblock, and aren't we like the second highest taxed country in the world?

The reason I said I didn't think autos should be made public is because I don't really want one, I wouldn't have the money to shoot it as much as I would like, and there wouldn't be anything exciting enough to shoot with it.

MicroBalrog
March 13, 2004, 08:30 AM
The reason I said I didn't think autos should be made public is because I don't really want one, I wouldn't have the money to shoot it as much as I would like, and there wouldn't be anything exciting enough to shoot with it.

First, they came for the full-auto shooters...

The Real Hawkeye
March 13, 2004, 09:44 AM
I now believe that the love of Liberty is exclusively an American Phenomenon.

WesI'm beginning to see it the same way.

GoRon
March 13, 2004, 10:21 AM
Besides, emigrating from Israel to Massachusets is self-defeating

Now that is funny!:D


I now believe that the love of Liberty is exclusively an American Phenomenon.


Liberty is an abstract notion to much of the world. Once they get to taste for themselves first hand they want more. Then they get fat and happy and start trading it (liberty) away for freebee's and "security".

We are well on the way of trading it all away. Trading our birthright for a bowl of soup.

ChairborneRanger
March 13, 2004, 10:30 AM
Ah yes, the difference between being a subject and a citizen!

BHPshooter
March 13, 2004, 11:28 AM
quasi-religious/ethnic cult in northern India

Do you refer to the Thuggee?

Liberty is an abstract notion to much of the world. Once they get to taste for themselves first hand they want more. Then they get fat and happy and start trading it (liberty) away for freebee's and "security".

True, but it is rarely the ones who have tasted both Liberty and the Nanny State that trade Liberty away. Any person worth his/her salt would understand what we've got when they've experienced otherwise, or if they've had to work for it.

The problem is finding out why others work tirelessly to banish Liberty. :scrutiny:

The Real Hawkeye, glad to see you made it over to The High Road. ;)

Wes

The Real Hawkeye
March 13, 2004, 11:44 AM
The Real Hawkeye, glad to see you made it over to The High Road.

WesThanks, Wes. I just noticed that this post makes me a "senior member." It is indeed an honor. :D

freewheeling
March 13, 2004, 12:33 PM
Do you refer to the Thuggee?

Yes.

HunterGatherer
March 13, 2004, 01:36 PM
Our cultural differences mean we will see totally different ways on thisYes, but I would have thought that the passage of time would have allowed Aussies to overcome their penal colony victimhood outlook.

I guess not though.

freewheeling
March 13, 2004, 03:18 PM
Yes, but I would have thought that the passage of time would have allowed Aussies to overcome their penal colony victimhood outlook.

I don't think that's it. It's a matter of having started from a different position, not that they haven't moved. Canada is far more deferential to authority than the US, but they have changed significantly over time. They now have a bill of rights roughly modelled on the US. But the "distance" between Canada and the US on both deference for authority and socio-economic policy hasn't changed much in over a century. (See S.M. Lipset's book: Continental Divide) In addition the three primary "settler societies" represent three different class-oriented waves of immigration. Canada: upper class/tory. US: middle class/whig. Australia: working class/labor. The class/ideology wave with the greatest resistance to noblesse oblige politics was the middle one.

(I'm sure this is more than you ever wanted to know about the topic, of course.)

Update: The other thing that's almost totally unique about the Aussies is the notion of "mateship," which is far deeper than mere friendship. I just saw a great documentary about the "reall story of the bridge over the river Kwai" that talked about how this process of partnering between close friends saved many lives.

Esky
March 13, 2004, 09:58 PM
I sure can't call myself an expert on things Aussie, but though I was born in the USA, back in 1973 I went to Oz, and stayed for thirty years. Now I'm back in the USA & feel a bit like Rip Van Winkle; this country's changed since I left (or I have, or both.) Now Oz is a beautiful place, I'm still in love with it and its people, (and here it comes!) BUT...

Even in Western Australia, where I spent over 25 years, it's getting too dangerous. My son's still there, and he got mugged last New Year's Eve; luckily he's OK, just got a mild concussion, bruises, cut lip and black eye. Naturally everything he had on him was stolen. Yeah, that could happen here too... but here it's still (barely, but still) legal to defend yourself. Even if my son had had a weapon, if he'd used it he would have been in more hot water than the criminals who assaulted him. Must be my American upbringing, but that just ain't right.

I was present in court (Armadale Court of Petty Sessions) when an interesting case came up; a man had been stopped for a "random breath test" (which he was never given) and the policeman noticed a baseball bat in the back seat of his car. Asked what the bat was for, the man (who was not some young gang-banger, but a guy in his 30's, well-dressed, looked like a solid citizen to me) said that it was for self defence. He said that some low-lives had moved in close to where he lived, and he'd made it clear to them that if they messed with him, he'd fight back. He'd never had to use the bat; just the fact that he had it was sufficient deterrent. The magistrate gave this man a lecture about how he wasn't going to allow Australia to become a "wild west" like in America, found the man guilty of carrying a weapon, and fined him A$150 (about US$100, at that time.) I couldn't believe what I was hearing. So now this guy's got a criminal record, just because he was willing to defend himself! When he hadn't done ANYTHING. (Oh, and his baseball bat got confiscated, too....)

I've often wondered if the low-lives down the street beat him up, once they found that he was disarmed. I guess he could ask them to wait, while he called the cops on his mobile phone!

Thanks everyone for making this a very memorable thread- there has been much wisdom imparted here. And like most, I'm worried that we too are losing the ability to exercise our rights, even though (unlike Oz) we do have some of them enumerated in our Bill of Rights. Those rights have been sadly eroded here in the "People's Republic of **********", that's for sure!

Esky

oldfart
March 13, 2004, 10:30 PM
As near as I can tell, the problem can be compared to this:

The people of OZ have been eating government issued sandwiches for years. They've been told that they're peanut-butter sandwiches but actually, the filling only looks like peanut-butter. They've never tasted real peanut-butter so they don't know the difference and are willing to defend their particular sandwich maker to the death. Once in awhile one of them gets to taste the real stuff and he suddenly realizes just what he's been fed all these years.

The bad part is-- When he goes to his friends to tell them what he's found out, they tell him he's full of s**t.

The Real Hawkeye
March 13, 2004, 10:44 PM
Esky writes:I'm worried that we too are losing the ability to exercise our rights, even though (unlike Oz) we do have some of them enumerated in our Bill of Rights. Those rights have been sadly eroded here in the "People's Republic of **********", that's for sure!

EskyYeah, but besides the enumerated rights, we have the 9th and 10th, which refers to other rights and powers not therein enumerated. What this means is that all rights that have been traditionally held by Americans are protected by the 9th and 10th. All you need to do is prove that we Americans have traditionally possessed the right of self-defense (a piece of cake), and the right of self-defense is protected from violation by the government, i.e,. they are not Constitutionally allowed to pass a law, or decide a case, which will have the effect of stripping a citizen of that right.

answerguy
March 13, 2004, 10:51 PM
I got into this thread a little late. Is there any part of Threeseven's carcass left that I can pick on?

HunterGatherer
March 14, 2004, 02:48 AM
(I'm sure this is more than you ever wanted to know about the topic, of course.)Not really. I was already aware of the "dialectical materialism" explanation for people acting like sheeple. I've never really bought into marxism though, and as such the "class warfare" thing doesn't have legs.

Thanks anyway. :rolleyes:

Bruce in West Oz
March 14, 2004, 07:47 AM
...in Australia because you are simply not allowed to use them against another human for any reason whatsoever, so they may aswell be in a safe.

I'm sorry, but that is total bulldust. There is NO state or territory in Australia where you can not use a firearm for self-defence if the situation warrants it -- if you feel in immediate, mortal fear for your life or that of your family. Yes, you may get charged by police. No, there won't be a court in the country that will find you guilty.

I can't believe any Australian can be other than outraged by our gun laws. To say that most Australians buy a gun for recreation, not for hunting or self-defence, is just absurd. More firearms are licensed for recreational hunting or shooting than for any other reason. The only caveat on "self-defence" is that it may not be used to justify "need or reason" for possession of a firearm.

The very presumption of "innocent until proven guilty" has been reversed for gun owners in Australia. If a firearm is involved, police do not need a warrant to enter your home. All they need is a stated belief that they thought the firearms laws were being broken. And you can't sue because that has been written into the legislation as well.

And it doesn't stop with guns, does it? Slingshots (catapults, wrist rockets, whatever you call them) are banned in some states, double-edged knives are banned here in the West, crossbows are banned in some states, legislation is being put forward now to ban compound bows, I was told by a copper that a screwdriver in my car (propping open a broken air vent) was an "offensive weapon", Victoria's banning swords, Sydney is instituting "random weapons checks" using metal detectors on people just walking down the streets. . .

Incidentally, there is no need to "pass legislation" to alter storage requirements. The "uniform gun laws" of 96-97 took care of that little detail by granting the power to the Police Minister or Commissioner to "amend by regulation". That power also extends to the right to totally ban any further class of firearms, without the messy necessity of having to go through parliament. It is possible now to totally ban firearms ownership without referral to parliament or a vote being required.

I think threeseven said it all when he said he was still playing with LEGO when the gun "steal back" was in progress ...

Esky
I'm in WA, too. Yes, there are some weird things go through our courts -- a man had his firearms licence revoked and his firearms seized because the police turned up for a storage inspection when he wasn't home and his wife opened the safe for them. The police alleged that, since she wasn't a licensed user, he had breached the law by allowing her access. Another man was charged when the police turned up for a safe inspection and spotted some cartridges for which he no longer held a licence (or even a firearm, for that matter).

Route666
March 14, 2004, 08:11 AM
I'm sorry, but that is total bulldust. There is NO state or territory in Australia where you can not use a firearm for self-defence if the situation warrants it -- if you feel in immediate, mortal fear for your life or that of your family. Yes, you may get charged by police. No, there won't be a court in the country that will find you guilty.

Yeh? Geepers, I thought you'd be hung for it. I was thinking about if you used a gun that is supposed to be in pieces, locked away in a safe for defence. I said the wrong thing.

Bruce in West Oz
March 14, 2004, 08:20 AM
Mate, no offence meant by my post. But your type of thinking is exactly what the authorities, the media and the anti-gunners want.

We still have an inalienable right to self-defence in Oz. I can't shoot someone for trying to steal my DVD player -- but if they come at me or mine with a weapon and an intent to kill, then I sure can respond with lethal force. It may difficult to do, given our storage laws, but that doesn't mean it's illegal. Chap in Adelaide did it a little while ago. Had prowlers in the house. Confronted one with a .303. Prowler rushed him with raised arm and tomahawk (from memory). Man fired, .303 round went through the prowler's hip. Howeowner charged by police, found not guilty by the court. Prowler then went for civil action, suing the homeowner. :cuss: Again, fortunately, prowler lost the case.

Ryder
March 14, 2004, 08:29 AM
A physical firearm census? They must care for your safety an awful lot! :rolleyes: Governments use census information to plan for the future. Knowledge is power. I'd be extremely hesitant to allow anyone to know my state of defensive readiness. But then as was pointed out we Americans are different. We have a right to expect being "secure in our possessions".

Not to offend but since you Aussies are all such reasonable people I'd like to hazard a reasonable prediction. Once their reasonable inspection is reasonably complete and crime doesn't drop to a reasonable level in response to their previous reasonable confiscation they will come for the rest of your unreasonable guns. When's that next inspection?

Government use of absolute power has a bad reputation. You're right about one thing, this "bastion of liberty" here is drowning under the weight of it's own laws. But freedom is lived, it isn't something written on a piece of paper. Over 2 million currently incarcerated. Anybody's guess what percentage of our population has been there and done that (20-50 million?).

The main difference here (as I see it) is that people don't automatically relinquish freedom when it's demanded. Freedom comes with a price. If you play, you have to pay. Best of luck to you all over there.

Route666
March 14, 2004, 08:41 AM
I just found this:

Bill of Rights is probably Article 7, which reads as follows:

"Subjects' Arms - That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law."

ok, I'm not fully understanding what "their conditions" means. Does it mean the weapon's or the person's? And is it the mental state, or the state of condition of the weapon or what?

Route666
March 14, 2004, 08:51 AM
No offence taken Bruce, I guess I'm more un-edefecated on the subject than I thought, and I need to learn.

It is good to hear that defending yourself isn't seen as a heinous crime.

freewheeling
March 14, 2004, 09:16 AM
quote:(I'm sure this is more than you ever wanted to know about the topic, of course.)

Not really. I was already aware of the "dialectical materialism" explanation for people acting like sheeple. I've never really bought into marxism though, and as such the "class warfare" thing doesn't have legs.

Thanks anyway.

Well, it may be a kind of "class warfare" thesis, but it's definitely not a Marxist one. The point is that there's a kind of elitism buried in the Marxist doctrine that appeals, in most countries, to the "upper class." Lipset discusses this at length in most of his books, and I think it has a great deal of validity. So in every country that once had a king and nobility the people who were in that "class" have an attitude toward the poor that used to be called "noblesse oblige." This attitude translates without much difficulty into a certain receptivity to socialism. (In England this attitude is manifested in the "red Tories" or the "wets.") Americans aren't familiar with this history, or how it developed, but I think it's critical to understanding the affinity between the upper class elites or the wealthy (many of whom are motivated either by this noblesse oblige attitude, or plain old guilt) and the so-called "poor."

Lipset, and a few others like the philosopher Frederick Turner, have recognized the symbiosis between these two groups. Consider, for a moment, how people like FDR, Teddy Kennedy, and Soros got to be the way they are. And believe it or not, this also translates into voting behavior. Contrary to popular belief, the well-off are most likely to vote for social programs, and the welfare state, partly out of self-preservation. It's certainly a theory of class, but you sure won't find in anywhere in Marx.

Think about it.

freewheeling
March 14, 2004, 09:44 AM
I sure can't call myself an expert on things Aussie, but though I was born in the USA, back in 1973 I went to Oz, and stayed for thirty years.

Well, that gives you a kind of expertise that I don't possess. I'm sure you've heard the terms "currency" and "silver" as they were applied to the people who settled Australia? All I'm saying is that Aussies just never had as much "natural immunity" to the politics of class as Americans did. As regards the self-defense versus the protectionist state, I think the latter is collapsing. You mention the crime trends, but you can point to the same thing in England... and most Brits are aware of the rise in breakins. A recent program on the BBC got a surprise when it found that most people wanted the discretion to use deadly force to defend their homes, and that there's growing support for a right to self-defensive weapons. I use the example of the fourth 9/11 plane passengers as the archetype of this new attitude toward the state. In other words, I think we're winning that argument, although it's sure too soon to rest on our laurels. There are obviously a lot of people who still don't get it.

The Real Hawkeye
March 14, 2004, 10:09 AM
I just found this:

Bill of Rights is probably Article 7, which reads as follows:

"Subjects' Arms - That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law."This last phrase, "as allowed by law," is a typical ploy of Communist nations. It is what lawyers call an "illusory guarantee." It is illusory because it places absolutely zero obligation on the government to recognize any sort of right belonging to subjects. It is as if I said to you, "If you will give me $10,000 today, I promise in return that on Monday I will give you my '75 Corvette, should I be so inclined."
It is the last part that makes the deal illusory.

BHPshooter
March 14, 2004, 11:16 AM
This last phrase, "as allowed by law," is a typical ploy of Communist nations. It is what lawyers call an "illusory guarantee." It is illusory because it places absolutely zero obligation on the government to recognize any sort of right belonging to subjects. It is as if I said to you, "If you will give me $10,000 today, I promise in return that on Monday I will give you my '75 Corvette, should I be so inclined."
It is the last part that makes the deal illusory.

Want a scary thought? look at your state constitution section about arms -- here's Utah's: The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the Legislature from defining the lawful use of arms.

The same kind of thing, except for the fact that defense of persons, property, and security of the state are explicitly mentioned. However, like we know with the 2A, ambiguity can cause a lot of trouble -- so why do they put in things like this? :scrutiny:

Wes

HunterGatherer
March 14, 2004, 01:38 PM
Consider, for a moment, how people like FDR, Teddy Kennedy, and Soros got to be the way they are.I have, and I don't think that they are as motivated by noble obligation as one might think. I do believe that it is the face they put forward to the public, but I think that all of the people you mentioned (and more) figured out long ago that a majority of people will vote for socialism if given the chance.

FDR et al. are just betting the odds. They count on at least 50% of the population wanting something for (seemingly at least) nothing, they roll the dice, and they win.

It's much harder to sell people on the idea that they can be self-sufficient. It's much harder to convince people that self-defense is - by it's very definition - one's own responsibility. And men of weak character, men of questionable morals, will sell people short every time. And so they exploit the weakness of their fellow man. They count on niggling at a person's own self-doubt, of their uncertainty that they can make it on their own. In doing so, they sow the seeds of our destruction.

The worst part of all is that they have more allies every day. Public schools, colleges & universities, major media outlets... all of them preach the same garbage. The lessons they teach are always the same, no matter what the subject, look for the excuse. Not wealthy yourself? Blame the rich! Too much of a sheeple? Blame class! Being picked on? Blame racism, sexism, ageism, classism, speciesism, or whatever nonsense designer buzzwords are in vogue at the time.

The result is people like Kerry. A man (I use the term loosely) who is for, and against, EVERYTHING!!! Or how about Johnny Jihad bin Walker? Daddy leaves mommy for another man? Boohoohoo. Definitely a justification for joining death-cult psychotics in Trashcanistan. Most definitely.

It all makes me want to :barf:

freewheeling
March 14, 2004, 05:12 PM
H.G.:

Well, you're partly right in the sense that it's driven more by self-interest than nobility of spirit. But it's a pattern that goes far beyond those particular politicians. I don't know what I need to do to convince you. It's not simply a matter of an isolated electoral strategy here and there. People of great wealth are more likely to vote for social democratic (i.e. quasi-socialist) policies than laissez-faire policies, across the board. It's not like the folks I named are class traitors, or anything. They're typical. You don't need to appeal to idiosyncracies of individual politicians to explain a pattern that's at least a couple of centuries old.

Of course why this pattern exists is even more fascinating. The most straightforward explanation I've heard about this class allegience is that the position that elites hold in society depends upon maintaining a client base among "the poor," or the "oppressed." (I think this is what you were saying, more or less, right?) So I think you have the hang of it, but your focus is too narrow. The issue is, are they more interested in the oppressed, or in having a perpetual problem that demands their particular "service?"

As Frederick Turner observed in an article for Tech Central Station awhile ago (although I can't find the cite) this claim to the "noblesse" part of "noblesse oblige" begins to look a little thin when you consider that most of these self-styled elites would rather Iraqis had remained oppressed rather than allow them to be liberated by the likes of George Bush. And even more to the point, if the oppressed somehow ceased to be oppressed, or poor, they simply wouldn't need anyone looking out for them. Which, of course, puts many of these elites out of a job. Or, at least, it seriously undermines the game they play. Turner's point is that "liberation" is about the last thing these folks really want to see the US doing.

And I maintain that it's the middle class that represents the primary resitance to this nonsense. The Scottish Enlightenment, including Locke, Hume, Adam Ferguson, Adam Smith etc., was a middle class phenomenon. It makes perfect sense when you think about it. The poor have an interest in benefactors, and the wealthy have an interest in being benefactors in order to keep power. The middle class only have an interest in the work they do, and how well they do it, because that's what they get paid for. They have no strong class allegience, because they simply assume most people are like them.

It may be an orversimplification, but the following generality also has a lot of truth:

1. Canada was founded primarily by royalist tories, so they *were* the authority figures, and of course maintain that value set. Canada is the country of the counter-revolution. The heros of their wilderness expansion period were benevolent policemen (RCMP).

2. The US was founded by the middle class escaping the mother country's attempts to suppress their freedom, and also escaping the status and economic constriaints of the class system. The US is the country of the revolution. The heros of their wilderness expansion were outlaws, mostly. Or at least people who were on the edge of outlawry, like the Earps.

3. Australia was founded by working and lower class (mostly) who had been caught up in England's overflowing prison system. They weren't so much escaping the mother country as being driven out. Heros of their wilderness expansion were reformers, reformed convicts, and labor leaders.

Of course it's an oversimplification, but it's still a very useful one.

But even with all those differences between them, the three settler societies are really more alike than different.

HunterGatherer
March 14, 2004, 06:01 PM
The issue is, are they more interested in the oppressed, or in having a perpetual problem that demands their particular "service?"They will always go for "... having a perpetual problem that demands their particular service..."

Liberalism = poor helpless slob can't possibly think/do/make anything for himself, so it is the duty of "enlightened progressives" to create a government that will do for the helpless slob.

What the helpless slob (who votes for the liberal wanks) doesn't understand is that a government that does for one, will subsequently ALWAYS do to one. Whether one likes it or not.

Bruce in West Oz
March 14, 2004, 07:08 PM
"Subjects' Arms - That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law."

From memory, the High Court of Australia has ruled that subsequent legislation in Australia has overruled this clause -- that is, it is no longer valid.

Route666
March 14, 2004, 07:41 PM
Yes I know, I read after I posted that British and thus australian parliments have the power to over-ride anything, even if it goes against the constitution. Well, anything EXCEPT any legislation that gives them less power to legislate. OMG. So what is the point of the constitution? Are we going to get another chance to break off from British rule and become an independant country?

freewheeling
March 14, 2004, 09:11 PM
I seem to recall someone making the claim that home invasions in Oz are up. I have no doubt that this is the case, but does anyone have a citation? Someone is pressing me for it, and I thought folks here might have more knowledge of where such a statistical trend may be explored.

How about those Terps, huh?

Esky
March 14, 2004, 11:25 PM
Here's a link to an article by Dave Kopel (sorry, it's PDF) that may help shed some light on the situation in Australia:

Who Needs Guns? Lessons From Down Under (http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Foreign/Australia.pdf)

I'm sure I can find more, but this one was already on my hard drive.

Esky

fallingblock
March 15, 2004, 12:44 AM
"Now Oz is a beautiful place, I'm still in love with it and its people, (and here it comes!) BUT..."
************************************************************


I also emigrated to Oz in 1973, but didn't stay that time.

I've got ten years in Oz and seven in N.Z., and things have changed for the worse in both nations.:mad:

But then, so have they in the U.S. as well:eek: .

Maybe it's a "global liberty degeneration" sort of thing?

Bruce in West Oz
March 15, 2004, 03:39 AM
freewheeling

What you're looking for is possibly here:
http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/44E7066A7D173A95CA256BDC0012241F?Open

Or if not in that section, perhaps you can try the search function. I think they refer to "unlawful entry" as a cover-all, including "home invasion".

Bruce

Radagast
March 15, 2004, 06:54 AM
Route666, I should report him? He's already been reported to the Ministers firearms advisor. If the Legislature aren't willing to haul him in what do you expect will work, complain to Dave Madden the Assistant Police Commissioner who ordered an arguably illegal search and seizure of property in 190,000 homes?

You don't think people should own full auto, because you don't want one? I don't want an airpistol or a Hammerli. Should they be banned as well?

BTW I'm legal to own full auto. :)

Firearms are specifically illegal for self defence because our Prime Minister hates them and mandated it in the 1996 legislation they he forced on the States. He gets around with an armed 14 man security team of course.

Security guards are the way the elite and wealthy obtain armed defence. If you can't afford the cost of a security guard then you are obviously not worthy of the right to defend yourself. Note that an individual with the same training and insurance as a security guard cannot carry a weapon, you have to be employed as one.

Safe storage requirements were implemented to enforce this, if you have it locked up then you can't use it. The approved gun lockers can be pulled apart in 2 minutes with a hammer and chisel or a cordless drill. Pop riveted cabinets don't prevent theft, they prevent 'unauthorised access' in time of need, that is the intention. You put the cart before the horse there.

I will be satisfied with laws that are there to punish those who harm others, not that restrict essential liberty, including the right to self defence, the right to be secure in ones home and posessions from arbitrary search and siezure.

If you have your power meter checked you don't have the local plod enter your home and arrest you not having a lock on it and disconnect your cables, with a minimum six month wait to get it reconnected if you beat the charges.

I remember the days when I didn't have to lock up my firearms, when I could purchase a gun without a permit to acquire, when firearms made prior to 1900 didn't require a licence, semi autos and pump actions were freely available, if I wanted to stick a gun under my bed I could and firearms crime was a big deal. Now it's commonplace, because they have been made to be bad and scary. Which attracts criminals.

Back in the 60s a couple of London Bobbies were killed with an unlicenced, unregistered Browning pistol. At the subsequent inquiry the local police chief called for the registration of shotguns because the sawn off shotgun was the weapon of choice of criminals. The sawn off shottie had not been reported in a crime in that year. The next year they were commonplace, because criminals wanted to use what, according to media reports, was their weapon of choice. Restricting firearms and making them more unconfrontable makes them more valuable, and hence more likely to be used by the criminal class.

Re porn: Your cry of unawareness rings false. Anyone with an email address is aware of porn. Exposing kids to firearms teachs responsibility,safety awareness and respect for life. Porn teachs that women exist for the sexual use of men. Unless it's homosexual porn, child porn or beastiality where the user and usee may be different. Wether you get a kick out of porn or not, it's purpose is to stimulate sexual sensation. It is at the low end of the scale. What's wrong with kids finding out in the old fashioned way, by finding someone they like, learning how to kiss and moving on from there?

Re having no vote. In 1988 I registered to vote, two weeks later I helped vote out the Unsworth Government that was running on a platform of banning private possession of firearms. I fought a rear guard action on the latest NSW legislation, helping to keep the damage down. I help run three clubs, one rifle range and I'm the secretary of a state association. All you have to do to be effective is to put your hand up and be willing to work.

Freewheeling, Robert Hughes is the standard expat: He hates Australia and snipes away at us from overseas while hoping to get his nephew by marriage elected as our first President. I haven't read the book, but I would take it with a grain of salt knowing his atitude to this country.

Bruce the guy in SA you are thinking of used a double barrel 12 gauge resting on his walking frame to blow away a goblin who had set fire to his house the week previously. No charges laid.

The guy with the .303 was the spokesman from SSAA Vic who used a SKS back in the '90s on a repeat home invader. IIRC correctly he beat the attempted murder and malicious wounding charges but was convicted of unsafe storage and I think unauthorised use of a firearm. IIRC he also lost his house in the subsequent lawsuit. I'd like to be wrong on that matter.

Ryder I'm fully aware the next siezure will use the updated files.

Re the bill of rights of 1688. A piece of legislation can be nullified by another piece of legislation. My school had an original copy, sent to one of the county sherrifs. I wonder if anyone else knew what a treasure they had. Re per 'condition' it meant that the nobles had better rights than the peasants and catholics where to be excluded.

Fumegator isn't there a similar clause regarding subject to the police power in the illinois constitution, allowing Daly to get away with his actions?

Route 666 the Australian constitution dosn't guarantee rights. In the late 80's the Hawke Government attempted to implement a minature Bill of Rights (better than nothing) at a referendum. It failed to pass because the then Opposition Leader, now Prime Minister opposed it. He never changes his spots.

Another detailed discussion of firearms and crime is at http://www.ssaa.org.au/FailedExperiment.pdf

Ken

freewheeling
March 15, 2004, 08:17 AM
Esky:

Thanks for the Kopel article. It was interesting and informative, but didn't have the stats I was looking for. The contention is that home invasions, and also "property" crimes have increased. I just want to see the stats on that. It is often claimed that DC has a high crime rate because guns from Virginia are easily available and can be smuggled in. I can't think of any place more isolated than Oz (if any place is isolated in the jet age) so it's about the purest social experiment one could devise to test the theory that gun control works. If property crime and home invasions are increasing at a rate higher than before the gun laws then even if you can't prove a causal relationship between the gun laws and increased crime you can reasonably infer it.

freewheeling
March 15, 2004, 09:00 AM
Radagast:

Freewheeling, Robert Hughes is the standard expat: He hates Australia and snipes away at us from overseas while hoping to get his nephew by marriage elected as our first President. I haven't read the book, but I would take it with a grain of salt knowing his atitude to this country.

I certainly did not get the impression that The Fatal Shore was anti-Australian. It was probably the most fascinating book I've read in 20 years. I've also heard him speak at the Wilson Center, and he did a fairly decent documentary on modern Australia recently. But it's always a bad idea to cleave to one source.

I'm still looking for recent data on home invasion. I've had one anti-gun Aussie tell me that prior to the gun ban not many people had self-defensive weapons anyway. So, I wondered, if that's true why all the fuss about confiscations? And they don't appear to be willing to acknowledge that either the failure to deter crime, or potential increases in crime, invalidate the policy. They're poised to argue that "poverty" is the cause of increases in crime rates. What a damn nightmare!

Shooterman
March 15, 2004, 09:05 AM
I am new to this forum and thread, don't know you or any of the other posters, but feel compelled to offer my opinion, FWIW, to this discussion. Admittedly, I am a dinosaur, a throwback if you will. ( my wife kept trying to throw me back, and I kept getting back on the hook )

I was taught and have believed for many years, a man's home was his castle. If one breaks in and steals, that person is the criminal, not the homeowner. He/she is also fair game for extreme measures to protect one's home. We have this same mindset in our country ( USA ), as you do. Keep everything locked up, and if something still gets stolen, it's basically your fault. I have a hard time with this, as well as with politicians that preach this nonsense.

I certainly understand your position of trying to make the best of a poor situation, and am not going to cast stones to try and enlighten you. I would suggest, the buggers that voted in these 'gun control' laws, be forthwith voted from office. It can be done, witness our removal from office of most LIB DIM GGs that voted for the AWB and the Brady Bill, in '94. I don't presume to know your political climate in Australia, but political critters living in your larger cities, obviously have little concept of those living in an non urban setting.

My best to you, Sir, and all the honest and law abiding gun owners 'down under'.

freewheeling
March 15, 2004, 09:29 AM
One enormous silver lining provided by the Australian experience is an object lesson in the concequences of firearm registration. The notion that it's, by definition, innocuous has been rendered laughable.

Shooterman
March 15, 2004, 09:42 AM
Freewheeling wrote;

One enormous silver lining provided by the Australian experience is an object lesson in the concequences of firearm registration. The notion that it's, by definition, innocuous has been rendered laughable.

Quite true, but that doesn't stop the LIB DIM GGs from trying to impose their nefarious ideals upon the rest of us. Unfortunately, there are far too many gun owners that seem to agree with them and their 'reasonable restrictions'.

BHPshooter
March 15, 2004, 10:18 AM
Fumegator isn't there a similar clause regarding subject to the police power in the illinois constitution, allowing Daly to get away with his actions?

I honestly don't know, although I guess it's as good (or bad) as any reason in their minds. It's funny that they'll exploit any loophole that can, but when we do it we're opportunistic bastards. :rolleyes:

Very interesting post, Radagast. ;)

Wes

NRA4LIFE
March 15, 2004, 03:31 PM
What's a ute?

Spinner
March 15, 2004, 04:14 PM
A ute?? That's short for utility vehicle ...... what you in the US call a truck. A cab with 2 or more seats and a tray behind.

Spinner

Radagast
March 15, 2004, 10:28 PM
Freewheeling, Hughes was the driver at fault in a car crash that crippled him and a couple of other people. His blood alcahol reading was several times the legal limit when they cut him from the wreck, which took several hours to do.

He wasn't charged at the time because his lawyer brought up the defence that they couldn't prove that his BAC had been that high at the time of the crash.
The guys he crippled subsequently tried to blackmail him and were charged.
He subsequently made racial slurs about the judge in the case, comments in the press about the Australian justice system being bent, that the 'tall poppy system' was trying to bring him down, etc, etc and that he was an American at heart and he would never return to Australia (failing to admit he faces jail for contempt of court if he ever shows his nose here again, not to mention charges relating to the accident).

Admittedly The Fatal Shore was in print many years before this, but his attitude matches that of Germaine Greer and a bunch of other ex Aussies who feel they are part of the intellectual elite: They need to run Australia down to feel accepted in London or New York. Funnily enough this is an example of what we call 'the cultural cringe', the idea that if it is from OZ it isn't as good as from Britain or the USA. Those of us who live here seem to have gotten over that, those that left and never contributed to making the country what it is today seems to hold onto it, while beating the drum against what they remember from their childhood. I've seen something similar in immigrants here. An example was a couple of Turkish origin who objected to their daughter having an anglo boyfriend. Then they went home to Turkey after 30 years and found out the country they remembered didn't exist anymore and that they missed 'home'. They don't object to the Aussie boy friend anymore. I think Australia has left Hughes behind. His relations are pretty powerfully connected people however, with fingers in economics, law and political pies.

The SSAA website used to have home invasion statistics, IIRC correctly they went up 500% between 1996 and 1998. 1996 is when the new lawas were announced, in 1997 they were implemented. If I can find the stats I'll post them at a later date.

On the idea that Aussies haven't owned guns for self defence prior to the laws being brought in, I call BS. In Tasmania there was no registration or licencing. In QLD licencing had only been brought in a year earlier, 'genuine reasons' hadn't been introduced.

In NSW they wouldn't issue a licence for self defence, but the licence came through with 'any lawful purpose' on the conditions.

In NSW there where 250,000 licence holders prior to the new regime of minimum attendances at ranges, etc, to prove competition requirements.
After 1997 the number dropped to 160,000 and has climbed since then to 190,000.

A few years ago the SSAA surveyed it's members. 25% gave self defence as a reason for owning firearms.

A ute is normally a sedan front with a tray rear. Not as large as an American SUV, but with better handling and suspension. Most tradesmen use them.
We call SUVs 4WDs.
Ken

Bruce in West Oz
March 15, 2004, 10:59 PM
Bruce the guy in SA you are thinking of used a double barrel 12 gauge resting on his walking frame to blow away a goblin who had set fire to his house the week previously. No charges laid.

Ta for that, mate -- the Alzheimer's bites deeper every day. :what: :D

P95Carry
March 15, 2004, 11:17 PM
the Alzheimer's bites deeper every day You too then Bruce ..... oh well .. commiserations ...... :p :D

fallingblock
March 15, 2004, 11:26 PM
"You don't think people should own full auto, because you don't want one? I don't want an airpistol or a Hammerli. Should they be banned as well?"
************************************************************


This quote brings to mind nearly all the Australian shotgun club members I've met.:(


I believe the security "audit" being conducted in N.S.W. at the moment has the verification of safe storage as its stated purpose, but the fact is the NSW firearms registry wants the serial numbers to improve their database.

Not a very encouraging sign, is it?:mad:

pbhome71
March 16, 2004, 12:39 AM
You can check out the Interpol site.

http://www.interpol.int/Public/Statistics/ICS/downloadList.asp

You can read these stat yourself. :)

-Pat

freewheeling
March 16, 2004, 12:46 AM
Radagast:

but his attitude matches that of Germaine Greer and a bunch of other ex Aussies who feel they are part of the intellectual elite: They need to run Australia down to feel accepted in London or New York. Funnily enough this is an example of what we call 'the cultural cringe', the idea that if it is from OZ it isn't as good as from Britain or the USA.

I'll take what you say under advisement, and I certainly know what you mean about a "literary and intellectual elite." It's a bit out of hand, I think, even in the US. When I was in grad school I was a research assistant to a very well known author, who was in his eighties. I used to drive him places, and he never complained about the fact that I had such an old beater of a car. Didn't even bother him when I had plastic over one of the windows after the car had been broken into. Then the car kept stalling and it happened once just as we were leaving the office. This old guy got out of the car, got around back, and started pushing this old clunker. Scared me half to death. I could just see the headlines, where he'd killed himself pushing my old car to get it started.

So I knew at least one of these "elites" who didn't really think of himself that way.

But he's a pretty rare bird. Most aren't like him. I guess if someone had had the foresight to tell me that the country was run by elites when I was a kid I might have planned my life better. But I was middle class, and just figured everyone was like me. I mean, most people are. This great man I knew was the son of an immigrant printer. He said he had failed as a factory worker after he graduated HS, and the foreman suggested he go back to school to find some other kind of work. His whole life was a series of "successful failures." He'd try something, fail at it, but the failure would lead him to something that he was successful at. He's written about 50 times as many books as Robert Hughes (literally), and I don't think he ever thought of himself as much more than a printer's son. Now, that's what America is about!

I went to Australia right after I completed my degree, as a kind of reward. I had a girlfriend there who was Australian and said she sort of thought of Australia as a "cub scout" version of the US. I dunno. That strikes me as not appreciating what you have. We have nothing like the Great Barrier Reef. We have antelope, but no 'roos. We have wilderness, but no expanse like the outback. It's... different. Definitely not a "cub scout" US. But I suppose that's the cultural cringe you're talking about. Oh yeah, we have nothing like Dame Edna.

Not to get off topic, but I'm just sick about Spain neutering itself over the al Qaeda attack. Wasn't that something? Geez, I never saw that coming. Bullfighters my ass! Makes me want to throw up.

Radagast
March 16, 2004, 03:20 AM
Actually I can see what occurred there.

I could be wrong, I don't follow the news from the Europe that much, but I can see how it occurred.

1) Spanish Government backs invasion of Iraq, at a guess a large percentage of the population, including people who normally vote conservative, consider this to be a war crime.

2) The media at the time probably trumpeted the idea that Spain would be more at risk of a terrorist attack.

3) 48 hours before an election that was already in the balance there is a major terrorist attack in Madrid. The Interior Minister, with no evidence to support him blames ETA. (My guess originally was ETA too, as the Spanish Govt. recently outlawed the their political wing, pushing them back to armed violence as their main option. Anyone think the IRA wouldn't start operations again if Shin Fein (sp?) was kicked out of parliament?)

4) Evidence pointing to Muslims is found.

5) Huge rallys against terrorism are held around the country, consolidating public opinion.

6) A percentage of the populace that would normally vote conservative go into the polling booths blaming the Government for creating the scenario that lead to the bombing and believing they lied about the perpetrators for political gain. They vote the government down.

7) The socialists had already stated they would pull their forces out of Iraq if elected and said that they would hold to that promise.

I don't think the pull out from Iraq is a result of the bombings, I think the fall of the Aznar government is.

On Hughes, looking back at my posts, I have been pretty harsh on him based on his public statements in recent years. Potentially his books from 20 years ago may not have been authored with his current biases in mind.

On the other hand, Peter Singer (animal Liberation founder) Col (Pol) Pot former head gun banner in NSW and Editor of the New York Post, you can keep. :)

freewheeling
March 16, 2004, 08:39 AM
Radagast:

I've decided to send you a private message about Spain rather that pull the thread OT.

I hope there's a turnaround on guns in Australia, but it'll probably take awhile. You might consider using the same incremental approach as the opposition, in the other direction of course.

1911Tuner
March 16, 2004, 02:25 PM
What a fascinating thread. It epitomizes the mindset of the subject
of the governent as opposed to a free man. Not to bash our Aussie
members, and particularly threeseven...but just pointing out the subjective
differences in the two.

The subject accepts that his government is better able to protect him from himself than he is. The freeman reserves the right to make his own
decisions in such matters.

The subject is "granted" his liberties, and quietly accepts the situation when they are revoked...while the freeman understands that he was born with them and will fight to keep them.

The subject has been indoctrinated in the notion that his guns are only acceptable for sporting use. The freeman knows that sport has nothing to do with it. Our 2nd Amendment states that we have the right to keep and
bear arms. It doesn't say that we have the privelege to keep and bear sporting goods.

The subject feels that the governing body is his friend, and is making these
decisions for his "own good". The freeman understands that when a governing body works to revoke his right to keep and bear arms, or any other God-given right, that the agenda can't be in his best interest.

The subject feels that all laws are morally right. If it's legal, then it's okay.
The freeman understands that "Legal" doesn't necessarily make it right.
He also knows that "Illegal" doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

Sensless rules are generally ignored in America, or at best, there is
feigned compliance. How many Americans would have shown the
inspectors their safely-stored firearms while carrying one under a shirt
or coat tail? It's a fine old American tradition to resist tyranny at every
turn, whether it's done in a quiet, subtle manner or blatantly in-your-face.

When the day comes in Australia that all owners must turn in their weapons, they'll probably comply at a rate of about 99%. When that day
comes in America, there won't be very much compliance, but there will be a run on shovels, post hole diggers, large PVC pipe and silicone sealant...
for the ones that don't already have their supplies of such things at hand.

Fascinating!

Tuner

Radagast
March 16, 2004, 05:22 PM
Pretty spot on Tuner.

Of course, a hell of a lot of Aussies have never complied with the legislation. The gun show prior to the 1996 semi auto ban coming into effect, something like three tonne of dessicant was sold. :)

The biggy is that if you aren't licenced you generally can't use it unless you live out in the boondocks. We now have random searchs of cars and pedestrians for weapons. The carrying of pocket knives is illegal. And so it goes......

I would sat at a guess there are as many unlicenced firearms owners as there are licenced shooters.

With a soaring firearms crime rate among the criminal class, more and more shooters label themselves as LAFOs "law abiding firearms owners", so they deliberately exclude the unlicenced from their group as unacceptable people. The point many seem to forget is that if we went back to the days of no registration or licence, they wouldn't be beaking the law anymore. Afterall they are still normal citizens, with jobs family and mortgages, just like the rest of us.

Freewheeling, we can only try. As the current Prime Minature has a near religious hatred of guns and his deputy's brother is the spokesman for the Aussie gun control movement, the conservatives are dead deal for shooters.
The socialists don't particularly like guns either, but they don't have a mono mania about it. Most shooters seem prepared to take any economic damage that they may cause by giving them a run in office in return for the conservatives being forced to dump their current leadership. Wether the Sporting Shooters Association will try to mobilise the non politically active members at the coming elections I don't know. They have been trying to 'negotiate' for the last eight years with no success.

Ken

fallingblock
March 16, 2004, 06:54 PM
"I would sat at a guess there are as many unlicenced firearms owners as there are licenced shooters."
************************************************************

Particularly among the rural population. Just a couple of years ago, I was living in central Queensland and the number of folks who "never got around to registering it" surprised me.:)



************************************************************
"The socialists don't particularly like guns either, but they don't have a mono mania about it. Most shooters seem prepared to take any economic damage that they may cause by giving them a run in office in return for the conservatives being forced to dump their current leadership."
************************************************************


It's the Greens and Democrats, bosom buddies of the Labour left, that I worry about. Their hatred of firearms seems to be infectious.

The economic damage a Labour government will do is bad enough, but the anti-US / anti-war faction will isolate Australia if given the chance.
Still, the malevolent midget has to go. :fire:


************************************************************
"Sporting Shooters Association will try to mobilise the non politically active members at the coming elections I don't know. They have been trying to 'negotiate' for the last eight years with no success."
************************************************************


SSAA and its fossilised leadership seem to be perpetually several steps behind the other side. "Mobilising the membership" for them consists of a "Lock up your firearms" campaign. :barf:

1911Tuner
March 16, 2004, 07:15 PM
Of course, a hell of a lot of Aussies have never complied with the legislation.

It is furiously to hope. The Aussies share not only a common languge and heritage with Americans, they are just plain nice folks. If nothing else comes of the prevailing foolishness Down Under, an immigration of
Austrailians to America might net me some fine new neighbors. Think I'll
take'em shootin'.:cool:
----------------------------------


The gun show prior to the 1996 semi auto ban coming into effect, something like three tonne of dessicant.

:D Excellent! Thing is, that a similar legislation here would create
a dessicant shortage because 3 tons wouldn't cover a small city.:D
There was a RUMOR...of an ammunition tax in the works, and over the course of 3 months, billions of rounds of ammo was absorbed from
dealer's shelves and warehouses into station wagons and pickup trucks.
I was witness to one father and son team in a supply house in XXXXX Virginia loading up enough into the back of a Ford truck to put it down onto
the overload springs. The guy at the counter said it was their second trip in a month, and they had UPS trucks comin' in daily to restock the store.

Yessir...A FINE old American tradition. Want to create a black market? Outlaw it in America.:cool:

Cheers!

Tuner

freewheeling
March 16, 2004, 10:26 PM
Radagast:

The carrying of pocket knives is illegal. And so it goes......

What can I say? I am astonied.

Radagast
March 17, 2004, 06:52 AM
Freewheeling, compound bows will be banned by mid year as well.

Tuner, in 1996, the day before every licence was canceled and all shooters had to reapply for new ones, the que in one gun shop was six deep along a 20ft counter to purchase new firearms. I was out of the sport at that time, but I got back into it in reaction to government oppression.
The pro gun rallies had more attendees than the anti-vietnam war marches in the 70s.

Ken

freewheeling
March 17, 2004, 11:40 AM
I don't know how many have already read this seminal article by David Brooks (http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/001/102gwtnf.asp), but it gets to the heart of a lot of things, including the origins of the anti-gun sentiment, which really has very little to do with controlling crime. It may also suggest a political line of attack.

keyhole
March 17, 2004, 12:13 PM
The carrying of pocket knives is illegal. And so it goes......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


WHAT? Everyone knows that a man aint' dressed if he aint' carrying a knife.
Just goes to show how things will progress, once the sheepole let things go.

1911Tuner
March 17, 2004, 12:30 PM
Radagast! Yeehaa! Let the protests spread!

Amen freewheeling! It's never been about crime. It's always been about
control and subjugation. They know that as long as the populace is
armed, they hold the option of drawin' a line and sayin': "ENOUGH!"
Without that, the line creeps up all the way to the foot of our beds.

Keyhole...In my neck of the woods, a man ain't properly dressed unless
he's got his pistol on his belt. This here is one peaceful little town.
:cool:

A few years back, a snotty little city gangsta decided he'd stop and rob the
Shell station. Fred reached under the desk and leveled a sawed-off double shotgun at his belly and said: "Up to you son. What's it gonna be?"
The banger dropped a nice little Baby Browning and ran with one hand
holdin' his pants up. (Probably 'cause the seat of'em was a pound or two heavier than when he walked in.) When the local cops showed up, they unloaded the little Colt, handed it to Fred and told him he'd earned it.
(True story)

Ain't that America?:cool:

freewheeling
March 17, 2004, 01:16 PM
WHAT? Everyone knows that a man aint' dressed if he aint' carrying a knife.
Just goes to show how things will progress, once the sheepole let things go.

I really do not like this notion of "sheeple." It smacks of the very same bourgeoisophobia that obsesses the intellectual left, only in a different guise. The fact that you haven't figured out the political cultural formula required to turn things around doesn't mean any of these folks are any less human than you or I. In fact, they're damned successful, and I can tell you that most of them despise elitism as much as anyone. So it might be a decent idea to start cultivating them as political allies, finding out their interests and commitments, etc. What's the equivalent of NASCAR in Oz?

Radagast
March 17, 2004, 05:01 PM
Tuner, that is a nice story. :)

Freewheelin, the equivalent of Nascar is Auscar, but it pretty much died. We have 'Group A' instead. Basically sort of stock car bodies made from fibreglass and Kevlar on a tube steel chassis with a massive V8 engine in them.
Personally I prefer Group C. Spend $5000 on a second hand V8 sedan, put slicks on it and go racing.
We also have super tourers, basically European rules for two liters class sedans, and truck racing.

On the term sheeple, I use it because it is the best explanation for a mindset brought up to not understand danger or take personal responsibility for the safety of self or fellows. It is accurate and gets the concept across well. It dosn't mean that they are not intelligent or couldn't be educated, which I try to do, it simply means they at this time they act like sheep. Lambert thought he was a sheep. :)

Ken

freewheeling
March 19, 2004, 12:50 AM
A person purporting to be an Australian recently posted the following to me on another forum.

I notice that early on in this discussion you claimed that police were visiting licenced gun owners to check whether their guns were stored as required 'under the Act.' I think you will find that these visits were being made to security firms as they had been the source of illicate guns that had been stolen by criminals during break ins.

So is this true? These inspections were merely of security firms? Is that true?

freewheeling
March 19, 2004, 01:59 AM
Also, I can't find any evidence of either a soaring murder rate in Australia or a soaring home invasion rate. If people have evidence to the contrary I'd like to see it, but basically it looks like the murder rate has been pretty flat for a very long time (almost a century) and there really isn't a "home invasion" statistic, to begin with. There's a category of "unlawful entry, with intent" which also has a rather flat trend line. Assaults have been increasing though, and these make up the vast majority of violent crime in Australia.

I mention this because I've repeated some of these erroneous contentions, and don't think it does the cause much good. I'd rather state a modest case, than a hyperbolic one that only undermines the case when it's uncovered later.

Furthermore, I don't think crime has a lot to do with guns in the first place, and the data in Australia seems to support that contention. The cause of crime is probably an increase in the criminally minded, and that in turn is a result of family dissolution. Defensive gun use adds a cost to predation, so will tend to hold a lid on crime. But the causes are elsewhere.

So, given that theory and assuming there has been no trend of increasing family dissolution you could probably expect a gun ban to have little effect on the crime rate. It may increase slightly, as criminals realize there are no armed citizens so one of the major costs of predation has declined. But the rise in crime would certainly not be as much as 500%, as some have claimed. The rate of assaults is up about 30% since 1996.

So if I'm missing something in the data, what is it?

bukijin
March 19, 2004, 02:32 AM
sigh...guess I should weigh into this discussion also.

No - the checks are not of security firms only. In my state of NSW (each state has its own laws, but in the area of firearms, they are all very similar) police officers are auditing every (licensed) gun owner to check that storage requirements are being met and that gun registration papers match the guns that we own. This isn't a spot check, but rather by appointment. I have an appointment next week - no problem because I am fully compliant with the law. IMO, the difference between a criminal and a law abiding citizen is that law abiding citizens obey laws that we don't agree with.

Australia is not the USA - our law, culture, physical environment and history make Australia quite a different society than the USA. We do have a long tradition and history of rifle ownership and use but handguns have never been numerous here. Historically firearms have been used here against animals rather than humans. (no war of independence, civil war or invasion - nor is one likely in the future) Of course our constitution is very different from that of the USA.

Regarding crime rates, most people would say that our socialist-style democracy with cheap health care, good social security and cheap universities etc. addresses the causes of crime. Of course the large amount of money spent on repossessing our firearms in two seperate 'buy-backs' over the last several years should have been used in a constructive way. (education in prisons, drug rehab programs ?) To me, crimes involving guns have never been a significant problem (and I mean no disrespect to the families of people murdered in a few hideous massacres here). I contend that good people outnumber criminals by (at least) a hundred to one, so more gun ownership would make this society safer rather than more dangerous.

Radagast
March 19, 2004, 04:45 AM
Freewheeling, the inspection of storage arrangements in NSW is an ongoing and continuous program for all shooters. I was inspected two weeks ago, my local gun shop has sold an average of 6 safes a week for the last three months as people get the word.

On the murder rate, correct, it has remained basically static for the the last 20 years.

Home invasions are up, shoot to wound is up too, especially among the lebanese Muslim criminal milieu. I'll see if I can find the relevant stats and post them tomorrow.


Ken

Radagast
March 19, 2004, 05:05 AM
Hmmm... this is becoming harder to document than I thought.

http://www.aic.gov.au/stats/robbery/

shows armed robbery increased 50% from 1996 to 1997, I'll see if I can find some more stats.

Ken

Radagast
March 19, 2004, 05:35 AM
http://www.ssaa.org.au/graph/VictimsArmedRobbery19932001.jpg

Stats for armed robbery. Interesting scale pre 1996 and post 1996.

Note the 2002 figures (not on the graph) show a 30% drop. As the lastest gun confiscation had not started for the 2001/2002 financial year, so I'm at a loss at to why this has occurred.

http://www.ssaa.org.au/graph/VictimsAttemptedMurder19932001.jpg

The attempted murder graph was trending down prior to 1996, it is now trending up. Note that modern medicine plays a major part in survival rates, to this should bve combined with the murder stats to get an real idea of the crime rate.

No luck on the armed robbery in the home stats. I've posted a request for info on the Aussie forum. I'll pass on what ever I get back .

Ken

freewheeling
March 19, 2004, 10:33 AM
bukijin:

Thanks for clearing that up. A point about the general tone of your response, though. The murder rate in Australia is actually pretty high. About half the murder rate of NYC, for instance. I'm not sure how it compares to the murder rate per capita for the US as a whole, but my guess is that it's higher (though with a much smaller and far more urban population).

And on another point:

Regarding crime rates, most people would say that our socialist-style democracy with cheap health care, good social security and cheap universities etc. addresses the causes of crime.

Having an extensive welfare support system essentially does the same thing that defensive gun ownership will do (although using a different mehanism). It holds a lid on the crime rate. The cause of crime, however, lies in family dissolution which has been increasing throughout the developed world for some time. Since the 1960s actually. Frank Fukuyama calls it "the great disruption." Ironically the birth of Australia corresponds to an earlier "great disruption," where the crime rate in England soared as a result of similar social pressures. These periods seem to come in recurring waves.

freewheeling
March 19, 2004, 10:43 AM
Ken:

The attempted murder graph was trending down prior to 1996, it is now trending up. Note that modern medicine plays a major part in survival rates, to this should bve combined with the murder stats to get an real idea of the crime rate.

It's not terribly obvious, possibly due to the scale, but it looks to me like a classic (although modest) plateau effect. A sudden drop in the murder rate of 30% suggests another mechanism is at work, but I have no idea what it might be. Assaults continue to trend upward though, so overall violent crime is still climbing.

If you enjoyed reading about "Australia's ahead of the U.S.,,,," here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!