Reversing Aussie gun restrictions

[Yankee]

In any case, organised crime gangs which do trade in illegal guns are not in the business of committing the sort of mass-murder which the laws were set up to try and prevent. I'm not concerned about a member of the Hell's Angels going postal in my office building or my kid's school.

And the Australian office building/school shootings happened when?

Before johnnie's laws?

No? So how do you figure the laws are preventing something that didn't happen prior to their enactment?

You miss my point. You were saying that some bikie gangs still trade in illegal weapons and my point was that it doesn't matter in terms of spree killings because that's not the sort of crime that bikies participate in. Bikies could have access to machine guns and I still don't think we would see any Port Arthur style shootings because bikies don't fit the demographic for that type of crime. By thier very nature, gang members are not loners.
FYI - Frank Viktovik killed eight people in an office building using an M1 Carbine.

Respectable professional lives?
Australian spree shooters?
Could you provide examples?

Sure, lets start with Julian Knight who killed 7 and wounded 19 more in Hoddle Street. He was a cadet at the Royal Military College Duntroon (Australia's equivalent of West Point) a very tough to get into and prestigious institution. Then there's Frank Viktovik who killed nine and injured five. He was a Law Student at the country's finest Law School. Say what you want about lawyers but you have to be way above average to get accepted into Law at Melbourne University. Are you good enough to pass the selection criteria for Duntroon or Melbourne Law?

Thirteen years after 1960 no "spree" shootings happened.
They are exceedingly rare in Australia.

I never said they weren't a modern phenomena. This type of crime is relatively new. Much of what was unheard of to previous generations is now commonplace in our society. They aren't just rare in Australia, they are now unheard of and have been for a long time.

We have laws against drink-driving but just because some idiots still do it doesn't mean that the laws should be thrown out or were wrong in the first place.

Ah yes, but do the laws stop drunk driving?

No law can ever 100% guarantee to stop a crime from ever happening again but there is no question that drink driving laws have dramatically reduced the crime of drink driving and made our roads much safer. The same can be said of laws requiring seatbelts, laws requiring children to be secured correctly, laws relating to speed limits, laws relating to vehicle roadworthiness etc. These laws do not completely stop people from driving drunk or speeding or running red lights of letting their kids ride in the back of a pick-up truck but they have dramatically reduced these crimes and we are all safer as a result. Would you suggest that we not have these laws or that they are somehow unjust and infringe on our freedoms?

They won't prevent a 'spree shooting" when someone is determined to commit one.

They sure will when that person can't buy the weaponry needed to commit that sort of crime.

Common event? How so? One for every 20 years of Australian history?

Like I said, they are a relatively modern phenomena. We were averaging at least one a year for the decade leading to 1996 and we still hold the record for the most people killed in a single event. They were far too common for such a small country.

Ah yes, certainly anecdotal. You are dealing with an exceedingly rare type of crime. None occurred in the first 190 years of Australian history.

Really - what about the 70 people killed in 1860 during the Cullin-La-Ringo massacre or the 50 people killed in the 1928 Coniston massacre? How about the eleven civillians shot in Broken Hill in 1915 by two Afgahnis?

The loners, losers, psychopaths etc. are still with us, and they don't require a MSSA to do the deed.

Evidence suggest otherwise. We haven't seen any uptick in mass-murder by other means.

Murderers cannot be prevented from murdering by banning a tool.

All the evidence suggests that people who commit mass murder with military style weapons can be prevented from commiting those crimes by banning military style weapons. Unfortunate for those of us that enjoy shooting them but true nevertheless.

 

[fallingblock]

Point taken, Radagast....

But those Romans.....

You miss my point.

I don't think so Yankee.

Your claim that semi-auto weapons are unavailable to anyone in Australia is false. I used the bikkie example because its current. A Kalashnikov was recovered recently during a raid in NSW.

Bikies could have access to machine guns and I still don't think we would see any Port Arthur style shootings because bikies don't fit the demographic for that type of crime. By their very nature, gang members are not loners.

Helps to prove my point - it is not the weapons that commit "spree' killings.

Although IIRC, bikkies were involved in a couple of the so-called "massacres" in Australia.

FYI - Frank Viktovik killed eight people in an office building using an M1 Carbine. [/QUOTE]

Egad! He even sawed it off before using it! The man broke the law!

Frank wanted to kill, and no law would have stopped him. He was bright enough to have run up quite a toll, and crazy enough to have used fire.

It isn't the tool, it's the nutcase that kills.

...He was a Law Student at the country's finest Law School. Say what you want about lawyers but you have to be way above average to get accepted into Law at Melbourne University. Are you good enough to pass the selection criteria for Duntroon or Melbourne Law?

Well, 'back in the day', yes, but then I'm not homicidal, so it isn't relevant.

Julian Knight didn't do well in his military studies - in over his head, so to speak. The point is that he was giving off all the indicators of potential killer. Even stabbed a sergeant! Nobody paid enough attention to Julian.

They aren't just rare in Australia, they are now unheard of and have been for a long time.

Yankee, 13 years is NOT a "long time" in the context of Australian history.
There will be another 'spree' shooting, and there certainly will be more outcries to ban guns following it. It isn't the tool. The phenomenon is driven by sociological factors and not hardware.

No law can ever 100% guarantee to stop a crime from ever happening again but there is no question that drink driving laws have dramatically reduced the crime of drink driving and made our roads much safer.

The analogous situation here would be to ban cars to prevent drunks from misusing them. Once the drunks are identified by the system, they are progressively discouraged from the misbehavior (when the system works).

These laws do not completely stop people from driving drunk or speeding or running red lights of letting their kids ride in the back of a pick-up truck but they have dramatically reduced these crimes and we are all safer as a result.

"Crimes"?! Letting your kid ride in the back of a ute is a crime?
I for one do not think I am 'safer' as a result of banning a kid from riding on a ute tray.

Would you suggest that we not have these laws or that they are somehow unjust and infringe on our freedoms?

I would suggest that 'banning' the object, (vehicles), or substance (alcohol) from everyone because of their misuse by a few would indeed be a gross infringment of our freedoms. A 'nanny state' solution.

They sure will when that person can't buy the weaponry needed to commit that sort of crime.

Anyone in Australia with the cash can get one, if their motivation is sufficient. There are a lot of "illegal" weapons out there. Why do you think the various state police keep holding 'firearms amnesties"?

We were averaging at least one a year for the decade leading to 1996 and we still hold the record for the most people killed in a single event. They were far too common for such a small country.

Milperra Massacre- 2SEP 84
Hoddle Street massacre- 9AUG87
Queen Street massacre- 8DEC87
Surrey Hills massacre- 30AUG90
Strathfield massacre- 17AUG91
Central Coast Massacre- 27OCT92
Port Arthur massacre- 28APR96

That's about it for shooting "massacres", and the Milperra one wasn't the work of a 'loner', but a bikkie gang. Several of them involved shotguns, action type unspecified, Martin Bryant truly picked his "gun free victim zone" well. There was a crazy German tourist who killed five folks in the Kimberly, but he wasn't an Aussie.

Looks like they were all in that decade leading up to Port Arthur.
Rare events when spread over the 200 years of Australian History.

what about the 70 people killed in 1860 during the Cullin-La-Ringo massacre or the 50 people killed in the 1928 Coniston massacre? How about the eleven civillians shot in Broken Hill in 1915 by two Afgahnis?

Cullin-La Ringo and Coniston were both state-sanction 'retribution' killings, carred out by uniformed police and deputised citizens. Maybe a good example of why folks ought to have military style weapons...to protect themselves from a government bent on "ethnic cleansing"?

The Broken Hill shooting was a political act by two muslims protesting Australia's war against Turkey. Sure they were nuts, but they had a political cause and saw themselves as 'soldiers' for their cause. And, more to the point, they used rifles of a type still readily available in Australia.

Evidence suggest otherwise. We haven't seen any uptick in mass-murder by other means.

See Childers fire.
Has Australia's murder rate taken a dramatic turn downward?
NO.
It continues to decline at the same rate as before little johnnies laws.
How can that be?
Because 'spree' shootings are exceedingly rare in Australian history.
Even Martin Bryant's spectacular episode in 1996 represented only a tiny tick upward in murders when viewed over the decade.

All the evidence suggests that people who commit mass murder with military style weapons can be prevented from commiting those crimes by banning military style weapons. Unfortunate for those of us that enjoy shooting them but true nevertheless.

No Yankee, virtually NONE of the evidence suggests that.

Switzerland is awash with MSSA's and has a consistently low murder rate, and particularly, a low 'firearms involved' murder rate. It isn't the weapon that prompts or commits the murder.

The best demonstration of the fallacy of the claim that Australian law is preventing 'spree shootings' comes from our culturally, demographically and geographically similar neighbour New Zealand.

New Zealand had a 'spree' shooting at Aramoana 13NOV90.
There was the predictable knee-jerk reaction to "BAN the SEMI-AUTOS".

Kiwis, being a pragmatic nation with numerous hunters and shooters, went with tightening restrictions on MSSA's with a new category (E) of licence for their possession. Semi auto rifles and semi-auto and pump action shotguns
with a magazine capacity of seven or less are still freely available in N.Z.
(I have four of 'em). New Zealand has experienced no mass shootings since - despite the continued presence of the dreaded "killing machines" you seem to hold responsible. Why is that?

Because NZ has, since 1983, given up firearms registration for "A" cat.
long guns and put the resources into carefully vetting each firearms licence holder.
My mother-in-law was consulted before my Kiwi licence was issued!

Interdict the criminal. It's not the guns doing the killing.

 

[Yankee]

"Crimes"?! Letting your kid ride in the back of a ute is a crime?
I for one do not think I am 'safer' as a result of banning a kid from riding on a ute tray.

You may not be safer but the kid certainly is. If you crash a pick up truck with kids riding in the back, they will almost certainly die or suffer grevious injuries as a result of your stupidity. Yes, it is a crime to be that foolish and to endanger the lives of your children. The law exists to protect them and it works. Same thing for seatbelts, bike helmets, speed limits, drink driving laws etc. Call me crazy but I think laws that have proven successful in reducing needless death, injury and suffering are worth supporting.

The best demonstration of the fallacy of the claim that Australian law is preventing 'spree shootings' comes from our culturally, demographically and geographically similar neighbour New Zealand.

No - they're actually very different. Australia's population is overwhelmingly urbanised while New Zealand's is overwhelmingly rural or semi-rural. Most Australian's go weeks, months or even years without going anywhere near the outdoors while this is nearly impossible for most New Zealanders. And are you seriously saying that Australia is geographically similar to New Zealand?. One is an ancient, flat, weathered continent while is the other is a relatively recent, volcanic archipelego - you couldn't pick two places more different.

You actually make my point for me. New Zealand introduced strict controls on Military Style semi-automatics in the aftermath of that country's worst spree killing and consequently you have not seen that sort of crime in the sixteen years since those laws were passed.

Falling Block, Yankee, please remember you are on the same side:

Point taken Radagast.

I actually agree with much of what you say Falling Block. I grew up in a small rural community where every house had multiple firearms - petty crime was unheard of let alone mass killing. I would never suggest that guns cause crime but I think that it is wrong to suggest that they don't make it easier. I happen to believe that spree killings have been stopped in this country as a direct result of making the weapons of choice extremely difficult if not impossible to obtain. That being said, I would still like to see the ban overturned. As my nic says, I believe that a well armed populace provides an essential bulwark against state tyranny. I am certain that if we went back to the weak laws we had prior to 1996 that we would experience many more mass-shootings, but as horrible as that result would be, I feel that it is a price worth paying. I think it is worth enduring a higher risk to life in return for the freedom of self-defence. I am sure we agree on that.

BUT - even if we disagree that the the introduction of strict gun laws in Australia and New Zealand has resulted in an end to mass-shootings in both of those countries, the fact is that it doesn't really matter. For a moment lets just assume that it was a spectacular and miraculous coincidence that both of our of countries saw a sudden end to spree killings just as our gun laws were tightened up. The laws had absolutely nothing to do with it. OK, so what? The important thing is that the 95% of the population who have no interest in shooting assault rifles perceive that the laws were effective. The vast majority Australians and New Zealanders look at what is happening almost daily in the US and think "Thank God we don't have that here anymore". No amount of statistics is ever going to change that public support for ban on military style semi-autos. I think there is scope for changes to some aspects of the laws and for some easing here and there but no matter how hard I try, I just can't imagine any scenario where a majority of people in either of our countries is just going to wake up one day and say "You know what, we need much easier access to high-powered semi-autos in this country". Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to be proven wrong but the reality is that it's just not going to happen.


laws were introduced

 

[fallingblock]

Well, we can agree to disagree Yankee, we're on the same side!

You may not be safer but the kid certainly is. If you crash a pick up truck with kids riding in the back, they will almost certainly die or suffer grevious injuries as a result of your stupidity. Yes, it is a crime to be that foolish and to endanger the lives of your children.

It may be stupid. If the government makes it a crime, stupid still wins.
Look at aboriginal vehicle-related death rates and see the reality of near universal non-compliance.

Same with guns. If a murderer wants one, they can get one. Little johnnie's laws have not denied them to criminals, because criminals do not obey law.

The law exists to protect them and it works. Same thing for seatbelts, bike helmets, speed limits, drink driving laws etc. Call me crazy but I think laws that have proven successful in reducing needless death, injury and suffering are worth supporting.

No Yankee, the "law" acts only as a guideline for those who obey. It does not "protect'. Compliance is the issue. 'Spree' killers don't care about law.

In the case of gun bans, criminals do not comply. Never have, never will. They gain too much advantage from possession of a weapon. Yet the law denies the citizen the advantage of resisting the criminal. Bad policy.

Howard's 'gun ban' is not preventing guns from being misused, nor do drunk driving laws prevent drunks from driving if they so desire.

No - they're actually very different. Australia's population is overwhelmingly urbanised while New Zealand's is overwhelmingly rural or semi-rural. Most Australian's go weeks, months or even years without going anywhere near the outdoors while this is nearly impossible for most New Zealanders.

Uh, actually these are probably the two most similar nations in the world.
Over a quarter of UhnZud's population resides in Auckland. Throw in Wellington, CHCH and Dunedin and you've got well over 50% urban residence.
Aussies live in the outdoors, it's just that their beaches are more crowded.

And are you seriously saying that Australia is geographically similar to New Zealand?. One is an ancient, flat, weathered continent while is the other is a relatively recent, volcanic archipelego - you couldn't pick two places more different.

Absolutely! Both are southwestern Pacific nations, colonised by Britain, on the Australia tectonic plate,sharing Gondwanan plant and animal relicts. Oz is bigger and a bit more worn out, perhaps, but much of the east coast of Oz is as tectonically unstable as N.Z., or was in the very recent geological past. Tasmania even shares much of its alpine flora with N.Z.
They are far more similar geographically than say, Australia and New Guinea.

You actually make my point for me. New Zealand introduced strict controls on Military Style semi-automatics in the aftermath of that country's worst spree killing and consequently you have not seen that sort of crime in the sixteen years since those laws were passed.
Quote:

No not at all.
Semi-autos and pump shotguns are still very freely available in New Zealand.
I own two Norc M14's myself and can buy or sell as many as I want without any of the nonsense required here in Australia.
Just sighting the buyer's firearms licence is all that's required.

New Zealand's focus on the possessor rather than the object
is what provides the public safety advantage.

"Outlawing" an object means that only outlaws will possess them.
No deterrent whatsoever to a 'spree' killer.

I actually agree with much of what you say Falling Block. I grew up in a small rural community where every house had multiple firearms - petty crime was unheard of let alone mass killing.

And I on an Indiana grain farm.
We're products of a similar experience base.
In 1960, I took a .45/70 Springfield to my rural Indiana elementary school for "show&tell". My principle didn't bat an eye. I wandered all over our farm with a rifle from age nine or so. None of my guns ever shot anything without my directing the process. Not even the e-e-evil semi-autos! Maybe they were not evil enough?

I would never suggest that guns cause crime but I think that it is wrong to suggest that they don't make it easier. I happen to believe that spree killings have been stopped in this country as a direct result of making the weapons of choice extremely difficult if not impossible to obtain./QUOTE]

Yankee, we can disagree there.

"Spree" killings are exceedingly rare in Australian history. The spate of them in the '80's and '90's was no doubt due to interaction of multiple political, sociological and behavioral shifts in Australian society.

The guns did not do the killing.

Without a sociopath present, all those semi-autos and pump shotguns little johnny 'killed' (now there's a sufferer of hoplophobia if ever there was one) would be still quietly going about the countryside in the hands of their lawful owners. Statistically they were not the problem.

Banning the object does not deter a murderer.

There has been no reduction in Australia's homicide rate attributable to little johnnie's laws. Same as before, trending slowly down from a high in mid-20th century, to what it was in the early 20th century.

That being said, I would still like to see the ban overturned. As my nic says, I believe that a well armed populace provides an essential bulwark against state tyranny.

You betcha' it does! There is much wisdom in what those 'dead white guys' promulgated back in the late 18th century.

I am certain that if we went back to the weak laws we had prior to 1996 that we would experience many more mass-shootings,

Why were there no 'spree' shootings before that '80-'90's window, despite very 'weak' laws throughout the colonial period and beyond Federation?
Even Ned Kelly didn't randomly shoot folks.

but as horrible as that result would be, I feel that it is a price worth paying. I think it is worth enduring a higher risk to life in return for the freedom of self-defence. I am sure we agree on that.

Well, yeah, but we could go for gold and aim for a system like the Swiss have/had (sadly it's going downhill there too). Actually encourage each citizen to retain and promote freedom through skill-at-arms.
Civic responsiblity, if you will.

BUT - even if we disagree that the the introduction of strict gun laws in Australia and New Zealand has resulted in an end to mass-shootings in both of those countries, the fact is that it doesn't really matter.

It does matter. The assumption that sociological problems can be "fixed" by outlawing objects (or substances, for that matter) is patently absurd.
It is counterproductive and an irresponsible waste of resources.

Once again, there were no "strict gun laws" introduced in N.Z., simply an AA amendment to create a separate "E" category for MSSA's on the firearms licence. No "buy backs", no media hoopla, no wallowing in objectification of a problem.

...The important thing is that the 95% of the population who have no interest in shooting assault rifles perceive that the laws were effective./QUOTE]

Dang, just as we're about to agree to disagree agreeably,
you use that foul term of media construct: "assault rifle"

"Assault" is a behavior! The "Sturmgewehr" has full auto capabilities and is not what we are discussing in any local 'spree' killings. While TAS did once allow full auto weapons to be legally held, there were no "spree" killings involving them. When we adopt terminology the 'antis' invent to use against us, we injure our cause needlessly.:banghead:

The vast majority Australians and New Zealanders look at what is happening almost daily in the US and think "Thank God we don't have that here anymore".

Neither nation is similar to the U.S. historically or demographically. The U.S.
has massive sociological challenges which have nothing to do with firearms, but are partially expressed in illegal use by a very tiny percentage of the popluation. For example, over 80% of current crime in the U.S. is gang related. Are you aware that violent crime per capita (excluding homicide) is higher in Australia and N.Z. than in the U.S.? I suspect most of the complacent folks you refer to above aren't.
I grew up there, served in the Vietnam-era army and retain my citizenship and residence in Florida. And I didn't vote for the "O" man.

No amount of statistics is ever going to change that public support for ban on military style semi-autos.

Maybe not, but flawed policy is still flawed.

There is no demonstrable benefit upon Australian homicide rates as a result of little johnnie's laws.

I think there is scope for changes to some aspects of the laws and for some easing here and there..

.

Absolutely! There's no point in giving in to the hoplophobes just because they have created a mythology that resonates with the voter base.
Flawed policy, etc.

I just can't imagine any scenario where a majority of people in either of our countries is just going to wake up one day and say "You know what, we need much easier access to high-powered semi-autos in this country".

Dangit Yankee, there you go again with those media phrases:

What is a "high-powered" semi-auto? A Kalashnikov, a Ruger 10/22?
little johnnie banned ALL semi-autos. Nonsense and foolishness!

It isn't an action type somehow more prone to homicide.

The gun does not do the killing!

The same "ban this or that" argument is being used to ban ALL firearms wherever hoplophobes usurp authority. Which is, sadly, most everywhere these days.

Since the bizarreness of the '60's ("John Lennon and "Imagine"?)
folks have increasingly been conflating objects with intent, or perhaps to facilitate their agendas they desire/require total civilian disarmament.

Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to be proven wrong but the reality is that it's just not going to happen.

Never say 'never'.

Think of the apocryphal aborigines watching "Endeavour" cruising Botany Bay. One turns to the other and says: I don't see that it has anything to do with us."

But yes, not likely in the near term.
Still, bad policy ought to be resisted - we all pay for it.

 

[Yankee]

It may be stupid. If the government makes it a crime, stupid still wins.
Look at aboriginal vehicle-related death rates and see the reality of near universal non-compliance.

No, that is a result of near universal non-enforcement of laws. You can't imagine how remote some of those areas are and how few police are around. Many of these areas are also off-limits to non-Aboriginal people and have 'self-policing'. I can't remember the last time I saw somebody driving down the road with kids in the back of the ute and I am confident that if they weren't immediately pulled over by the Police that they would quickly be confronted by fellow drivers. What was dumb but acceptable 30 years ago is now dumb, unnaceptable and illegal today and kids are better off because of it.

Like I said, no law is ever written expecting nobody to ever break it but they are written to reduce the crime. Laws, when well crafted, do reduce the crime. When I was much younger, people would get absolutely plastered at the pub and drive home. People would joke about their cars being on autopilot because they'd wake up the next morning still sitting in the drivers seat parked in their driveway wondering how on earth they got home. It was not against the law and the road toll was horrific as a consequence. Fast forward to today and it is a very different story. The strict laws and harsh penalties for drink driving mean that the vast majority of us now carefully consider just how much we've had to drink before driving home. We know that if we pass through an RBT or get pulled over for any reason that there is a very good chance that we'll lose our licence and get a very heavy fine. If we should cause an accident while intoxicated there is a very good chance we'll go to jail. These laws and penalties have been enough incentive for most sensible people to change their behaviour. Of course there will still be idiots who flaunt the law and who kill innocent people but the numbers of drink drivers is far lower than it ever has been and we are all safer as a result.

Speeding is the same. I've gotten a few expensive speeding tickets over the years and it has been very effective in curbing my behaviour but I wonder how many of us would still obey the speed limits if there was no penalty for ignoring them?. With the introduction of speed limts and radar technologies, most people have very good incentives to follow the law and our roads are far safer as a result. Yes there are still some idiots but the vast majority of people still obey the law.

So what's the alternative? No seat belt laws, no drink driving laws, no child-restraint laws, no speeding laws, no vehicle roadworthiness laws. Yeah great, we're all free to do what we want. That's exactly what they have in Africa and driving there is statistically one of the most dangerous things you can do in this world. Kenya for example has over three thousand people killed in traffic accidents every year in a country with a very low rate of vehicle ownership.

Of course you are free to criticise my support for these laws but you have yet to propose an alternative vision. Do you think it should be illegal for a person to drive drunk? Do you think it should be illegal for a person to drive down the highway with kids playing in the tray of their ute? Do you think it should be illegal for a person to discharge a firearm into the air or in a public place? What about knowingly providing a firearm to convicted felon? Do you think we shouldn't have any laws or are you just against laws relating to firearms? Are some gun laws OK or should we go back to no licences, no registration, no limits on what you can have or who can have it? Should the public have access to machine guns, rocket launchers, grenades etc or do you support laws banning them. I'd be keen to hear you articulate your alternate to the systems of laws which you criticise me for supporting.

 

[fallingblock]

You're drifting into traffic law....

No, that is a result of near universal non-enforcement of laws. You can't imagine how remote some of those areas are and how few police are around.

Yankee, I lived 13km outside Alice Springs for five years, ending in 2007.
I know first hand about the place. Aborigines will drive drunk, without a licence, with one lug nut holding the wheels on and no lights. If by some chance they are stopped, they cannot be disciplined through the system because they often have no licence or registration. The communities are littered with dead cars and if the cops confiscate the offenders vehicle, they just bring another one back to life. Massive non-compliance.

Many of these areas are also off-limits to non-Aboriginal people and have 'self-policing'. I can't remember the last time I saw somebody driving down the road with kids in the back of the ute and I am confident that if they weren't immediately pulled over by the Police that they would quickly be confronted by fellow drivers.

None of the public roads are off-limits to non-indigenous folks, and that is where I have personally and repeatedly witnessed the above. You cannot "force" compliance with laws. I counted 14 people, about half kids, in the bed of a Land Cruiser on the way from Hermannsburg into Alice. Followed 'em all the way into Larapinta Dr. - nobody stopped 'em, nobody took any notice. And rightly so, it's their home and their lifestyle.

What was dumb but acceptable 30 years ago is now dumb, unnaceptable and illegal today and kids are better off because of it.

Like "banning" guns, the fact it is illegal NEVER stops it.

... Of course there will still be idiots who flaunt the law and who kill innocent people but the numbers of drink drivers is far lower than it ever has been and we are all safer as a result.

Only as a result of the drunks' voluntary compliance with the law.

Keeping the thread on-topic, you'll find that "spree" shooters, as intending murderers, really don't care about the law. If they need a weapon, they will get one. The law is no deterrent.

With the introduction of speed limts and radar technologies, most people have very good incentives to follow the law and our roads are far safer as a result. Yes there are still some idiots but the vast majority of people still obey the law.

You think it's about "keeping us safe"? I'd say it's also about funding the coffers of government - and I've not had a speeding ticket since 1981.

Yeah great, we're all free to do what we want.

That'd be the ideal of course.

With freedom comes responsibility. If you prefer a nanny state to look after you and cater for your every need, hey you got it.

I'll share a quote from one of the dead white guys with you:

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson

One of the things that annoys me most about Australia is the notion here that government is our friend and just needs more power to make things right for us.

Kenya for example has over three thousand people killed in traffic accidents every year in a country with a very low rate of vehicle ownership

.

Ha, you think that's bad, look at their manslaughter rate, particularly the firearms-related homicide rate. For a nation where guns are virtually banned, Kenyans manage to shoot each other at an alarming rate. Dang guns must not care if they're illegal or not.

Of course you are free to criticise my support for these laws but you have yet to propose an alternative vision.

Yankee, I haven't said anything criticising your support for road laws.

Our quarrel comes from your original incorrect assertion that little johnnie's gun laws are responsible for the 13 year hiatus of 'spree' shootings in Oz.
That assertion is not sustainable given the fact that such killings are extremely rare in Australia and only began to occur in the decade immediately leading up to the Port Arthur event. Your claim that because 650,000 lawfully held firearms were surrendered by licenced owners, and certain types of guns were 'banned' then 'spree' killings would stop is just ridiculous. There will be more, and they will be used to justify the removal of all lawfully-owned firearms from the Australian public.

It is not about public safety, you're being conned by folks who want total civillian disarmament.:banghead:

Do you think it should be illegal for a person to drive drunk?

Sure, but I am not naive enough to believe it will stop a drunk who wants to do so from doing so.

Do you think it should be illegal for a person to drive down the highway with kids playing in the tray of their ute?

I'm not comfortable with that one, seeing as how it is largely unenforceable where folks still do so, but again, having witnessed lots of vehicles with kids in the back unsecured, I'm not naive enough to think it will stop those who want/need to do so.

Do you think it should be illegal for a person to discharge a firearm into the air or in a public place?

Having current CCW licences from Arizona and Florida, I hold the very un-Australian view that self-defense is a legitimate reason to discharge a firearm in a public place....provided of course that one's life is in danger and risk to bystanders is minimised. Into the air, no.

What about knowingly providing a firearm to convicted felon?

That was illegal long before little johnnie's laws. Again, I agree with the premise of the law, but am not naive enough to think that just because there is such a law it will be obeyed by criminals. They don't obey the law.

Do you think we shouldn't have any laws or are you just against laws relating to firearms?

I'm against laws such as little johnnie's which seek to deprive the law-abiding of tools by banning objects rather than addressing their unlawful use. Those sort of laws do not achieve any public safety advantage.

Are some gun laws OK

Yes, I like Kennesaw, Georgia's law that the head of every household must possess a firearm.

Prohibition has a very poor record of success: alcohol, drugs, pornography....if folks want it, they'll get it, and when it's 'illegal' somebody gets rich into the bargain.

should we go back to no licences, no registration, no limits on what you can have or who can have it?

You mean like it was in Britain at the turn of the 19th/20th century?
They had a very low (nearing zero) firearms-related homicide rate.
One could own anything one could pay for. Of course, there was a lot more social responsibility and sense of community. That would be a goal to strive for, yes.

With rights come responsibility. Responsible folks ought to have access to firearms for their own defence and that of their community and nation.

Should the public have access to machine guns, rocket launchers, grenades etc or do you support laws banning them. I'd be keen to hear you articulate your alternate to the systems of laws which you criticise me for
supporting.

Yankee, are you a closet hoplophobe?

That question comes straight from the anti-Second Amendment playbook.

Of course, to "bear" arms implies the ability to do so - "arms" in the sense of the Second Amendment affirmation of the right to "keep and bear" refers to
portable weapons, although at the time artillery was not restricted and many community militia owned their own.

What would we have to fear from a responsible individual owning a machine gun? In the U.S., legal ownership has been heavily regulated to responsible individuals since NFA 1934. There have been, I believe, one or two instances of misuse by a lawful owner, and one was a cop!

As I have noted repeatedly in this thread, the notion that you can prevent criminal misuse of any object by prohibiting lawful ownership of that object is folly. the "tough gun laws" of little johnny are such.

They disarm the law-abiding but not the criminal. By all means, laws against firearms possession by convicted violent felons and certifiably insane or intellectually handicapped persons as well as unsupervised children make sense.

They address the potential perpetrator rather than merely one of his tools.

A blanket ban on action types, type of magazine, calibre, etc.- such as little johnnie's nonsense - are pointless from a public safety viewpoint.
From a nanny state perspective, however, just what the dictator ordered.

Read your sig line again. Note that the word is "right" not "privilege".
When a government disarms the law-abiding citizens on the pretense of so-called 'public safety', that's a government whose motives are suspect.

 

[jack404]

G'day gents

i'm new to the forum here but have ben involved with the gun issue on a few sides since before the laws became what they did.

simple fact

Australia's Westminster system is like a dinosaur slow to get moving but allmost unstoppable except for fear ( or scandle) once going.

any law

again

any law

SHOULD

take 4-7 months depending on opposition and requirements ( environment may need a EIS done prior etc) to go through get drafted voted on put before the house discussed rebutted etc etc etc

3 months at best

it took how long ??

3 days.......

who was here then ??

47 K street legal eagles including 3 from the current POTUS former employer a lobbyist on K street washington that is handling huge money for the anti gun groups

they'd been here 2 weeks after johnny got to power

i wont go into all the facts like bryant broke the rifle he used , took it to a smith and the smith refused to give it back and called the cops.

the cops made the smith hand it back..

nor his medical history and the commonwealths intervention there


a lot stinks

but the facts are

the USA based anti gun lobby paid for a lot of johnny reelection along with the EB nuts

I was then a serving soldier but i was cuffed, thrown to the ground and my flat and garage searched for rifles legally sold and shipped to the US.

they had the documents. It went through the feds

but the two did not talk back then

it was all a setup

the who's are pretty well known

the why is anyones guess

the how.. very suspicious

who benefits?

johnny for one

$3,000,000 USD for a speaking tour where bugger all turned up

the US anti gun lobby

they quote australian gun crime all the time , never get it right, but quote often.

but that aside johny aint there now

his history and legacy lives on

we have had some small wins

not many but some

i'd like a party law to NZ ,as i personally think we can get that

going back to when i could own a AR.. i doubt very much unless i had a time machine.. ( then johnny would never make PM )

blame dont matter any more, remember sure, but work for the future

i have given up on the shooters party in many ways

but beleive its a good start

if you can get your mates to write a email and cc the poli's and we all do that, it will get noticed,

parity with NZ is acheivable short term i think

and a change of rights

the rights to defend self ,family and property for a start

at the moment a legal gun owner who is lucky enough to
1 get the keys to the gun safe and unlock it
2 then get the ammo box and unlock that
3 put ammo in a gun
4 then shoots a home invader

is up for attempted murder and asault with a deadly weapon at least

once we have this right then attitudes will change

at the moment folks accept anything and mostly only cops or crims have guns

i would like to be able to own a .22 semi rifle again, and collect arms again

and to be able to protect me family if needed.

the rest i'm open on

but its a lot of work...

we need to get together

all aussie shooters, collectors, whatever

and start our own campain, join up with the shooters party if they want

but get it done the way politicians understand

messages from people and the press and the opposition

if we have 100,000 shooters send a email once a month to 5 address's
thats a lot of messages

500,000 would flood the gov system

its just a idea at the moment

but we gotta look and work forward

the past is the reality we have to deal with today

cheers

jack

 

[fallingblock]

Onya' jack!

once we have this right then attitudes will change

at the moment folks accept anything and mostly only cops or crims have guns

i would like to be able to own a .22 semi rifle again, and collect arms again

and to be able to protect me family if needed.

the rest i'm open on

but its a lot of work...

we need to get together

all aussie shooters, collectors, whatever

and start our own campain, join up with the shooters party if they want

but get it done the way politicians understand

messages from people and the press and the opposition

if we have 100,000 shooters send a email once a month to 5 address's
thats a lot of messages

500,000 would flood the gov system

its just a idea at the moment

but we gotta look and work forward

the past is the reality we have to deal with today

That's what it takes!

Get involved.

Stay involved!

Visit, write, and call politicians.

Take the time to discuss the issue rationally and calmly with anyone who expresses interest. Friends, family, co-workers.

Personal freedom was blindsided by the anti-freedom zealots.

Martin Bryant was their opportunity, little johnnie their medium in Australia.

If nobody resists, nobody fights back, then they've won.

One last suggestion- NEVER vote Green, the buggers are not our friends!

 

[fallingblock]

And an article for talking points on why prohibition is wrong:

Gun control restricts those least likely to commit violent crimes

By Don Kates
Special to the Examiner 4/6/09
The March 21 murder of four Oakland police officers by Lovelle Mixon, a convicted felon wanted for a recent parole violation, epitomizes the futility of “gun control,” or the banning and restricting of gun ownership for law-abiding adults. Using the officers’ tragic deaths to further an unrelated agenda — stripping away the Second Amendment rights of honorable citizens — is both harmful and distracting.

Mixon was not an anomaly. Felons commit over 90 percent of murders, with the remainder carried out primarily by juveniles and the mentally unbalanced. The United States already has laws forbidding all three groups from owning guns, which, by definition, are ineffective against the lawless. “Gun control,” therefore, only “controls” those who have done nothing to merit such regulations.

Arguments for gun control rest on deceptive claims such as National Coalition to Ban Handguns’ allegation that “most murders are committed by previously law-abiding citizens.” Americans are deluged by literally dozens of supposedly scholarly articles asserting such falsehoods — but with no supporting references. For there are none.

Notably, only 15 percent of all Americans have criminal records, yet more than 90 percent of murder suspects have a history of crime. Their criminal careers average six or more years’ length, including four major adult felonies, in addition to their often extensive juvenile records.

A New York Times study of the 1,662 murders in that city between 2003 and 2005 found that “more than 90 percent of the killers had criminal records.” Baltimore police records show similar statistics for its murder suspects in 2006. In Milwaukee, police reported that most murder suspects in 2007 had criminal records, while “a quarter of them [killed while] on probation or parole.” The great majority of Illinois murderers from the years 1991-2000 had prior felony records. Eighty percent of Atlanta murder arrestees had previously been arrested at least once for a drug offense; 70 percent had three or more prior drug arrests — in addition to their arrests for other crimes.

In sum, guns or no guns, neither most murderers nor many murderers — nor virtually any murderers — are ordinary, law-abiding, responsible adults. This conclusion is so invariably reached by homicide studies that the 1998 study by David Kennedy and Anthony Braga describes the fact that murderers are almost invariably veteran criminals as a standard “criminological axiom.”

Naïve, well-meaning people often respond to such facts with, “Still, wouldn’t this be a better world without guns?” After many years of studying guns as a highly effective method of self-defense, I reply, no, the world would be immeasurably worse off without the only weaponry that gives the weak a real chance against predators. After all, there was a time, hundreds of years ago, when there were no guns. Without guns for self-defense, survival was measured by the strength of men’s arms, as women, children and the elderly huddled in terror, escaping only by abject submission to their predators. Yes, Mixon used a gun to kill four Oakland police officers. But had he not been shot and killed by another member of the SWAT team, the death toll would have been undoubtedly higher. In the hands of sworn officers and moral citizens, guns are a powerful, swift means of protection. When the government passes laws that only peaceable people obey, they are simply leaving the same people at the mercy of violent predators.

Don B. Kates is a research fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland and a criminologist and former professor of criminal and constitutional law.

Gotta go out to Majura range before the "Easter weekend rush".

 

[Yankee]

And rightly so, it's their home and their lifestyle.

As you would be well aware, child abuse, rape and wife beating are also a devastating part of "their lifestyle". According to your theory, laws are completely useless in deterring any crime and therefore we should just accept this sort of behaviour as an unfortunate and unpreventable part of modern society. I happen to take a different view and believe that strict laws and relentless enforcement can have a significant impact in reducing these sort of crimes.

You think it's about "keeping us safe"? I'd say it's also about funding the coffers of government - and I've not had a speeding ticket since 1981.

You have just proven my point. Every day you drove your car in the last 28 years, you made thousands of conscious decisions to obey the law. You knew that you would be punished if you ignored the law and therefore you chose to modify your behaviour and drive at a safer speed. By reducing dangerous behaviour in just one person, the law can be considered to be a success. The near perfect correlation between falling road deaths and the introduction of various laws proves beyond a doubt that laws have led to greater public safety. It is no different with gun laws. There is a perfect correlation between the introduction of strict limits on access to certain types of firearms and an end to mass-shootings. The psychopaths and wanna-be-famous killers haven't suddenly disappeared from our society but they have been effectively denied the tools they need to commit their sick fantasies.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. You think it is very easy for a half-wit simpleton to buy an AR15 on any street corner while I believe that it is extremely difficult for even seasoned underworld characters to get their hands on these tools. Holsworthy Army Base in Sydney has just had to upgrade it's security status to level 3 because crime gangs are unable to get the guns they want on the black market and they are now having to contemplate carrying out raids on our military armouries. I think the equation is fundamentally quite simple:

Crumbling society with many unstable people + easy access to guns = many mass shootings
Crumbling society with many unstable people + very difficult access to guns = fewer mass shootings.

I definitely agree with you that if a person wants to kill their wife or enemy, they'll still find the means to do it with a knife, baseball bat, car or even single shot rifle, and if a person wants to rob a bank, they can still do it with a double barrelled shotgun instead of an SKS. However, if a person wants to slaughter everybody in their workplace, run rampage through a shopping mall or kill all of their classmates, they will have a very hard time achieving their goals without large capacity military style semi-automatic firearms.

As I have said before, I believe that increased gun deaths in society is a price worth paying in order to preserve the citizenry's capacity to defend themselves against the State. I absolutely would love to see a day where I could once-again purchase the sort of firearms available before the 1996 ban but I shudder to think just how dysfunctional our society would have to be before a majority of Australians felt that they needed an FN-FAL or AK47. As gun owners, I think we do our cause a dis-service by failing to acknowledge the very real downside of unrestricted access to some classes of firearms. America is better for having the second amendment but it pays a horrible price for that freedom.

BTW - Enjoy Majura. I had a chance to shoot there last March and it was one of the best facilities I've ever visited.

 

[Yankee]

Falling Block - I see the Police here just uncovered one of those bikie stockpiles of weapons you were talking about. Funny thing is, there isn't one semi-automatic military style weapon among it. A couple of very nast looking air rifles though. I guess the Gypsy Joker motorcycle club just doesn't have the same black market contacts you have!
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25308850-2682,00.html

 

[bukijin]

The best things we can do for firearms rights (anywhere) are to shoot, to introduce young people to shooting and to spend money on guns and ammunition.

The shooters party has had some success. We need small positve steps. Some of my ideas...

Removal of the ban on pump shotguns since pump rifles are still legal.
I think that the firearms act should cover police and corrective services.(since now they and the military are immune from it while on duty).
Lower the legal shooting age from 12 to 8.
Allow property owners/ occupiers to keep a loaded firearm on premises for the purposes of self-defense. (thats just a dream at the moment LOL).
Remove the restrictions on high calibre handguns.

Keep voting shooters party !

 

[fallingblock]

You're still not "getting it" Yankee!:banghead:

Dang, almost made it out the door!

The aboriginies I witnessed driving peacefully down the road - not even weaving side to side, had the option of riding on the tray back or walking into Alice from Hermansburg. Their chances of death or injury were far less in the Toyota than they would be in the summer heat.

N.T. cops know this. Only 'traffic safety' zealots would disadvantage already disadvantaged people by busting them for a minor traffic infraction.

As you would be well aware, child abuse, rape and wife beating are also a devastating part of "their lifestyle".

Yep, and all ILLEGAL!

Short of having a cop in every humpy in the N.T. what's your point?

Lawbreakers IGNORE the law, Yankee.

It does NOT deter the abusers from committing the abuse.

Are you getting my drift yet?

Drunken, drug affected and sometimes just downright nasty folks
are not deterred from anti-social behaviour simply because it is illegal.

Sometimes they are punished for it afterwards, but the deterrence effect
of 'whitefella' law is very weak in the communities.

My S.O. works for Centrelink and saw the results.
Nope, 'law' by itself isn't doing enough to deter the abusers.

According to your theory, laws are completely useless in deterring any crime and therefore we should just accept this sort of behaviour as an unfortunate and unpreventable part of modern society.

Yankee, how the heck are you getting that out of what I'm writing here?

I am trying to demonstrate that "laws" only deter those who are wishing to be 'law-abiding'.

For a determined miscreant ('spree' shooters definitely fit here!)
no law is sufficient to prevent misbehaviour.

Ever.

Anywhere in history.

At any time.

I happen to take a different view and believe that strict laws and relentless enforcement can have a significant impact in reducing these sort of crimes.

No, I guess either you have completely misconstrued what I'm trying to say or are clinging to some bizarre concept of "law".

Strict enforcement of anti-abuse laws will work, but only as long as there is a cop nearby to whack the abuser.

Far better if the culture of abuse is altered.

We need the laws to enable incarceration and punishment of offenders.

Again trying to get BACK on-topic-

Prohibition of objects never has and never will deter a criminal from committing a crime. Do you really think all those lawfully-owned .22 rabbit rifles were a threat to law & order in Australia?

It is no different with gun laws. There is a perfect correlation between the introduction of strict limits on access to certain types of firearms and an end to mass-shootings.

In this assertion, Yankee, you are incorrect.

You cannot sustain the assertion with reliable data - you just keep repeating the assertion. Which remains just as incorrect with each repetition.

There is no such correlation.
There is the anti-gun folks' (and your) anecdotal claim that 13 years have passed since the last 'mass shooting'.

Even that is disingenuous, because the Melbourne U. shootings which
'the little one' used to justify his "tough new handgun laws" occured since.

What you make is an unsubstantiated claim, Yankee.

Wishful thinking will not validate it.

With the next 'spree' shooting you will see renewed claims for the banning of more 'evil' types of guns.

"Sniper rifles' perhaps?

'Powerful shotguns'?

Or dear Bob Brown's personal favourite:
"Hand machine guns" (semi-auto pistols)?

You are being conned by the anti-gun civilian disarmament bunch.

[/QUOTE]The psychopaths and wanna-be-famous killers haven't suddenly disappeared from our society but they have been effectively denied the tools they need to commit their sick fantasies.[/QUOTE]

In this assertion, you are incorrect. You cannot sustain the assertion with reliable data, so you just keep repeating the assertion. A bottle of petrol will 'enable' them.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Yup, looks like it.:banghead:

Please refrain from praising the folks who are stealing your freedoms.

You think it is very easy for a half-wit simpleton to buy an AR15 on any street corner while I believe that it is extremely difficult for even seasoned underworld characters to get their hands on these tools.

Any simpleton with enough money can get anything. Depend upon it!

At the moment, pistols are the 'hot' crime tool for 'ordinary' criminals.
It's pretty tough to conceal a Stoner or Kalashnikov in their normal venues.

Those weapons are around though, along with literally thousands of SKS carbines. Torres Straight Islanders were trading crates of SKS for kava a while back. Customs seems to have shifted the trade elsewhere. You have to ask yourself where were the TSI folks getting the SKS carbines from?

Holsworthy Army Base in Sydney has just had to upgrade it's security status to level 3 because crime gangs are unable to get the guns they want on the black market and they are now having to contemplate carrying out raids on our military armouries.

Yankee, you're naivety in the face of news media hype is breathtaking.

Read it thus: "The demand for 'evil' guns has risen to such a degree that folks are willing to risk serious lawbreaking to get rich quick."

"The military is thinking; "Gee we've lost quite a few weapons recently, better tighten up security'."

What a surprise!

I think the equation is fundamentally quite simple:
Crumbling society with many unstable people + easy access to guns = many mass shootings
Crumbling society with many unstable people + very difficult access to guns = fewer mass shootings.

Quite simple but fatally flawed, thinking.

There were no mass shootings, despite relatively easy access to guns for most of Australia's history. Then they began in the '80's

Mass shootings are exceedingly rare in Australian history and began occurring only after gun laws began to tighten.

The shootings haven't ceased - merely taken a statistical breather.

The antis understand this - they are conning you into believing that it's about "public safety". It's about civilian disarmament. Total.

... However, if a person wants to slaughter everybody in their workplace, run rampage through a shopping mall or kill all of their classmates, they will have a very hard time achieving their goals without large capacity military style semi-automatic firearms.

Again, Yankee, you are swallowing the con you're being fed.

Against unarmed victims, any firearm confers significant advantage.
From reports of recent such killings, victims do not react, or merely run away.
It does not take many victims to constitute a 'massacre' in Australia.

What percentage of the annual homicide totals do such killings represent?

How common was their occurence in Australian history?

Are those killed individually any less 'dead'?

As I have said before, I believe that increased gun deaths in society is a price worth paying in order to preserve the citizenry's capacity to defend themselves against the State.

Yes, you may make the statement as often as you wish.

The fact is it is a non-sequitur.:banghead:

Switzerland and Israel come to mind.
Weapons are issued to nearly every military age citizen, females too in Israel.

Extremely low firearm-related criminal death rates for both nations.

One 'spree' killing in Switzerland in 400 years of arming the people.

Israelis deal with 'spree' killers the way they ought to be dealt with.
Someone shoots them before they can run up a total.

....I shudder to think just how dysfunctional our society would have to be before a majority of Australians felt that they needed an FN-FAL or AK47.

Are you aware of the psychological phenomenon of "projection" Yankee?

You might find some research into it to be of assitance with your thinking.

"Need"?

As gun owners, I think we do our cause a dis-service by failing to acknowledge the very real downside of unrestricted access to some classes of firearms.

You may be a gun owner Yankee, but you seem bound and determined to assist those who would disarm you. Good luck to you.

The "downside" to which you refer is, and has always been, PEOPLE willing to break whatever laws necessary to commit an act.

It's never really been about the type of firearm available. And it still isn't.

If you could see that, you'd maybe hang onto those guns a bit longer.

America is better for having the second amendment but it pays a horrible price for that freedom.

The United States is better for having a codified Bill of Rights which ennumerates some basic human rights which government may not abridge or infringe.

"It" does NOT pay a horrible price for safeguarding any of those rights.

Those around the world who live in systems without such safeguards do pay the horrible price
on a daily basis.

In the U.S.A - a price is paid by the (statistically relatively few) victims of violent human beings who would not be deterred by any law.

Those who would relish total civillian disarmament gleefully and predictably leap to exploit their misfortune.

BTW - Enjoy Majura. I had a chance to shoot there last March and it was one of the best facilities I've ever visited.

Nice range, good people running it. What's not to like?
Wish it wasn't so durn far from my end of Canberra.

 

[fallingblock]

You can knock off the innuendo Yankee....

I guess the Gypsy Joker motorcycle club just doesn't have the same black market contacts you have!

It isn't polite, and it isn't "High Road" either.


As far as the mo'cycle bros go, they aren't gonna let plod get the good stuff.

 

[fallingblock]

That's the approach that might succeed.

Removal of the ban on pump shotguns since pump rifles are still legal.
I think that the firearms act should cover police and corrective services.(since now they and the military are immune from it while on duty).
Lower the legal shooting age from 12 to 8.
Allow property owners/ occupiers to keep a loaded firearm on premises for the purposes of self-defense. (thats just a dream at the moment LOL).
Remove the restrictions on high calibre handguns.

To achieve these gains we need more representation and more activism from
shooters.

How do we do that?

Aside from the good advice from bukijin to keep voting shooters party?

 

[Yankee]

I guess the Gypsy Joker motorcycle club just doesn't have the same black market contacts you have!

It isn't polite, and it isn't "High Road" either.

Sorry mate, the Australian sense of humour can be a bit dry at times. The comment was intented to be very much tongue-in-cheek and I meant no offence by it. But since you brought it up, how do you explain your personal comments to me such as:

Yankee, are you a closet hoplophobe?

Golly Yankee, how can you be so wrong?

Yankee, you're naivety in the face of news media hype is breathtaking.

Again, Yankee, you are swallowing the con you're being fed.

Are you aware of the psychological phenomenon of "projection" Yankee?
You might find some research into it to be of assitance with your thinking.

You may be a gun owner Yankee, but you're bound and determined to assist those who would disarm you in their efforts.

Pot meet kettle

Seriously though, have a great Easter and good luck on the range.

 

[fallingblock]

The difference between allegation of criminal activity...

and observations upon your comments might be obvious....

No offense taken, either way.

Exasperation is not your friend!

Don't want the AFP monitoring this site to have a stroke, do we?

Great autumn weather for the range here. Still and absolutely clear.

Have a great Easter over your way Yankee.

 

[Art Eatman]

No "stroke", but this has gotten way off-topic and much too personal--dry humor or no.