1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

2006: Howard says yes NEW gun restrictions

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Aussieseek, Apr 27, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Aussieseek

    Aussieseek member

    Mar 23, 2006
    Sydney Australia
    2006: Howard says yes NEW gun restrictions
    Radio97 says

    Just a note to you all here that Talkback will be Alive today as Alan Jones on Radio 2GB 873AM which has the Biggest radio audience in Australia will do a special show on Guns in light of the new proposals for Gun reform as talked about on the AussieSeek Messageboards

    THE Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, has foreshadowed further restrictions on guns, saying nobody should have firearms unless they are an essential part of their job.

    Mr Howard stressed his loathing of guns and said he was particularly concerned at the proliferation of pistols since rapid-fire rifles and shotguns were banned.

    "I think there's still more that can be done on that front; I do. I'd always seize opportunities to do more," he said.

    Mr Howard said he had no specific plan at this stage regarding pistols but hinted he was prepared to work again with the states on measures.

    "We just do not need guns," he said.

    "I don't think Australians need guns unless it's your job or you're in genuine need of protection." Only police, security officers, farmers and legitimate sporting shooters should have them, he said.

    Mr Howard said there had been a "marked improvement" in gun-related deaths since the states and the Commonwealth combined after Port Arthur to outlaw semi-automatic rifles and shotguns.

    His claim is supported in a new study, by the University of Sydney academics Simon Chapman and Philip Alpers, which finds the 1996 gun buyback resulted in "remarkable reductions in gun death".

    The study, which monitored trends from 1979 to 2003, found that while murders, suicides and accidental shootings had been declining in the years before Port Arthur, the rate of decline had accelerated markedly after the gun buyback. From 1979 to 1996, there were an average 617 gun deaths a year. In the seven years since, that average has dropped to 331.

    Mr Howard was only six weeks into his prime ministership when Martin Bryant killed 35 people at Port Arthur.

    "It just seemed to me at the time that I had to do something about this," Mr Howard said.

    "What is the point of holding an office with that authority unless you're prepared to use it?

    "A few of the hardened experts around said, 'Oh, you can't do this. You won't get them to agree. We've tried this before.'

    "I said, 'Well, blow it, I'm going to try this.' "

    Mr Howard said the Australian Institute of Criminology reported firearm murders had fallen from 99 in 1996 to 38 in 2003. All gun-related deaths, including suicides, fell from 521 in 1996 to 299 in 2003.

    He partly attributed a decline in the suicide rate among young males over the same period to "guns being a bit harder to put your hand on".

    The Sporting Shooters Association of Australia said any move which targeted legal pistols would fail.

    "If the Prime Minister is looking at handguns, we would be extremely disturbed because he has absolutely no evidence to warrant it," said Dr Jeanine Baker, the national research co-ordinator for the association.

    Dr Baker said the 1996 buyback had had no effect because gun deaths were already declining. She said the money spent buying back 700,000 rifles and shotguns should have been spent on mental health and social programs for those most likely to use guns for killing.

    Dr Baker said further bans on pistols would only hurt sport shooters because the overwhelming majority of pistols used in shootings were illegal.

    She said less than 0.1 per cent of illegal pistols had been stolen from legitimate, licensed owners.

    Be Gunsafe and View the white-hot Debate over gun control legislation in World Countries including the USA and Australia at
    We offer a healthy dose of common sense to the national gun debate with views of both pro gun and anti gun supporters

    join the debate and help us find solutions at Matilda Messageboards !
  2. TX1911fan

    TX1911fan Member

    Mar 7, 2006
    The problem with those statistics, if they are even true, is that as cold numbers they ignore the human element. While the gungrabbing was good for the hundreds of people who were not murdered, the fact remains that several hundred were murdered by guns. If I am one of the hundreds who are threatened with a gun, I'm not going to be too happy to say to myself "well, I know I'm going to die, but at least there are a bunch of people who aren't." I would much prefer that one of the gun deaths be the perpetrator, not me. Kind of like that looney Peters from Australia, not working for the UN, who says its better to be attacked by a machete than a gun. I only agree with this statement if what she means is that my attacker has a machete and I have a gun!
  3. Aussieseek

    Aussieseek member

    Mar 23, 2006
    Sydney Australia
    The Chinese used to play music at Taiwan all day through loudspeakers

    The Chinese used to play music at Taiwan all day through loudspeakers

    There are lots of ways to distract your enemy.

    Now over a Aussieseek at


    no one will be there to oppose Toms anti gun posts.

    While welcomed the problem has been that several of the pro gun posters havent been able to match Tom and the Anti Gun coalition.
    Seemingly not being able to put two words together on a worthy cause.

    Tom (are you reading this?) knew the value of a "failing site that only manages to tick up 3 to 5,000 visits a day being in the influence game"

    I guess her ploy was to keep them dragged in and involved in a war of
    a diversion with cyber terrorism as PC puts it and during all that ?

    Then good people like Johnomelb and Johnosydney and Willy,nramember,nily et all were
    distracted and then were sent went the other way out on a tangent with a campaign of shoot the messenger. Not understanding OUR job is to keep hot and fresh topics on the front page

    (no Newspaper- no Tom) Kill Keith sue him bash him duh

    And then !!!! no suprise !!!! they never got around to saying something direct like this


    Shep said well on usenet

    Gun laws, no matter how harsh, will have no effect whatsoever on the
    criminal use of firearms.

    No matter the lies fed by the proponents of gun control, criminals are
    sourcing their firearms through a black market fed by handguns stolen
    from police, security industry and those smuggled into the country.

    Legal firearms owners have to satisfy stringent and obstructive legal
    hurdles just to pursue their sport. They must have a clean record and
    they must adhere to sensible storage arrangements. None of this
    applies to criminals who have no regard whatsoever for anyone or
    anything. So, really, who is the threat to your safety?

    Remember the recent thefts from the security industry, remember the
    women recently apprehended leaving a middle eastern country for
    Australia with handgun parts hidden under their Burkhas and remember
    the recently detected firearms in overseas consignments at our ports.

    I will say again, remove the firearm-related crimes commited in just
    S/SW Sydney from the whole equation and you will find Australia does
    not now, and never really had a gun problem. What we do have is a
    problem with a group of people who refuse to adhere to our way of life.

    Anti-gun activists will have you believe that the buybacks were a
    success when the AIC will tell yoiu they need "a few more years" before
    they can make a definitive comment. We have been told - "we need
    another few years" every year since 1996. Quite obvioulsy the results
    are not coming out how they want them.

    Harsher laws will only impact on and penalise those who obey the laws,
    and they are not the problem.

    Gun control is an emotive subject and I implore anyone who wishes to
    form an valid opinion to do so only after hearing both sides of the
    story and examining the evidence and the logic that both parties might
    bring to the table.

    It is refreshing to hear the NSW opposition leader taking a balanced
    and rational (albiet a political) stance on the issue. We need more
    rational thought and less hysteria and deceit.

    If you want the so-called 'gun-crime' to stop, demand action from your
    politicians - demand that they put more police on the streets, that
    they take tough action against those who possess illegal firearms and
    those who use them in a criminal manner. Last of all, demand that the
    judiciary stop it's softly-softly treatment of certain ethnic groups
    (you know - the ones causing all the problems). The maximum penalty
    for the possession of an illegal firearms is ten years - it's never
    been imposed yet the polies are willing to make new laws to burden the


    Thats a substansial quality post

    I think beasleys press secretary has got it right.

    May be YES Have a new war on guns but with legal gun owners as allies
    and use the money on x ray equipment for containers

    Am I wrong as usual :confused: :confused:
  4. Mongo the Mutterer

    Mongo the Mutterer Member

    Apr 28, 2005
    St. Louis
    So gun murders are supposedly down...

    What are the statistics for



    Home invasions?

    Murder by other implements?

    Inquiring minds would like to know... :rolleyes:
  5. Wyndage

    Wyndage Member

    Nov 3, 2005
    I predict that if the use of motorized vehicles was banned in the United States, the number of traffic deaths would drop sharply.

    But would the American people actually be better off?

    And if a sizeable number of the gun deaths that have been avoided in Australia were in fact criminals whose victims didn't have the means to shoot back, are Australians better off?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page