Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: It is time for evidence-based gun controls. AUSTRALIA?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Haz.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    I come from a land downunder.
    Posts
    1,227

    Post imported post



    CHECK THIS OUT. The party that banned guns in Australia's Web Site? The public's comments are well worth a read also.

    http://www.liberal.org.au/Issues/Com...-controls.aspx

    It is time for evidence-based gun controls.

    The 1996 National Agreement on Firearms was based on 1980s ideas from academics, activists and senior police of the National Committee on Violence. Rhetoric about 'America' blamed ordinary people for problems that have little to do with Australian reality. The emotional climate of 1996 resulted in laws that show 'moral superiority', but place very unfair burdens on innocent Australians that use firearms in daily life.

    Recent research has shown that the high cost and regulatory burdens were not particularly beneficial in terms of lives saved or reduced violence. Social contagion theory best accounts for the massacres not as functions of 'availability' but of imitation, triggered by activism and sensationalist media reporting. The cessation of massacres is likely because media stopped framing stories that such crimes were 'easy' because of then gun laws.

    A new Agreement on firearms should keep the helpful parts while dropping the parts that are based in elite contempt.

    What helped:
    - The national framework to prevent leakage to the black market;
    - Shooter licences with background checks;
    - Safe storage standards.

    What is excessive and should be removed:
    - Long waiting periods drawn out further by bureaucratic delays.
    - Way excessive restriction on ordinary sporting guns like semi-auto .22s and repeating shotguns.
    - Excessive restrictions on air rifles, air pistols and replicas;
    - Viciously excessive requirements on pistol club probation and attendance.
    - Denial of the human right of self-defense.
    - Obstructive police policy and abuse of police discretion.
    - Waste of the public's time and money through bad process design and failure to use technology.

    Fourteen years is enough. Its time these offensive laws were fixed to balance the protection of the community with the legitimate conduct of these sports and rural working life.

    __________________________________________________ ________________

    Here's my 2 comments.

    Haz. 15/05/10 12:28 PM Report Abuse

    I read the papers every day and all I see is a daily sustaned attack on innocent law abiding citizens going about their business by criminals. Fact is, criminals never handed in ONE Friearm during the buyback and never will because as we all know they do not obey any laws. Criminals are having a field day knowing full well the average person on the street cannot properly defend themselves if attacked. A firearm is a tool just as a hammer, band saw, knife, or an axe is a tool. None are dangerous unless used with the intent to harm. Australias gun laws have done nothing to prevent crime, in fact the crime rate has gradually increased since the laws were passed.


    • Report Abuse

      700 people 'like' the idea of re-visiting gun c ontrols and basing them on evidence. This is not a free vote collector for either major party, but its high time that seething moral indignation be checked for rationality when we are writing laws - not just in gun law, but many other 'hot button' issues.

    • Report Abuse

      Wow! Logic being (almost) considered by a political party.

      A commitment to review the current oppresive gun laws would be enough to win my vote, and I have not voted Liberal in my life.

    • Report Abuse

      200 registered supporters and 711 'like' the idea, but now the toxic people against evidence-based revision of the gun laws are increasing their 'dislike' count.

    • Report Abuse

      I read the papers every day and all I see is a daily sustaned attack on innocent law abiding citizens going about their business by criminals. For example. Daily Telegraph this morning. A teenager, just out of juvenile detention goes into Woolworths, steals a 30cm kitchen knife, and stabs a fellow student, despite a ban on carrying knives in public. Banning knives has not stopped criminals from getting a knife and using it on an innocent member of the public, just as the firearms ban has not stopped criminals using firearms in their crimes. Why, because criminals do not obey the law. I carried a pocket knife for 40 years untill the knife ban. I now leave it at home in a draw. So what has the knife ban done. Nothing but stop law abiding citizens from carrying a knife in their pocket. Luckily the young victim lives.
    When a criminal invades your home and has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.

    My Definition of Gun Control: The idea that dozens of people found dead in the Broadway Café, Tasmania, and many also seriously wounded, all while waiting for police, who were called to show up and protect them, is somehow morally superior to having several armed and therefore alive civilian's explaining to police how the attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Old Grump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Blue River, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    Call me crazy but remove all restrictions on owning guns by people of legal age. If they commit a felony, they lose their rights to possess firearms. If they are caught with a firearm after losing their rights to possess one they go to jail, they stay in jail, they don't get out on early release, period. No license, no permit, just an ability and willingness to play by the rules.

    Some dope gets caught brandishing a weapon he gets it taken away from him, if he gets caught using it unsafely he gets it taken away from him, if he gets caught poaching he gets it taken away from him. Next move is up to him on how bad he wants to keep his freedom to work, walk the streets and go to the beach. None of this 3 strikes and your out. You know the rules, they are taught in school when the physical education teacher teaches gun safety and marksmanship classes to the young ones.

    If somebody doesn't like that kind of society they are free to move to a gun free Utopia. That sure would eliminate a lot of liberal politicians form the governmental payroll. Just don't expect me to come and visit them in there Utopia. I would feel safer on the streets where I know most everybody can carry and probably are.


    Roman Catholic, Life Member of American Legion, VFW, Wisconsin Libertarian party, Wi-FORCE, WGO, NRA, JPFO, GOA, SAF and CCRKBA

  3. #3
    Regular Member Sig229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    926

    Post imported post

    Old Grump wrote:
    Call me crazy but remove all restrictions on owning guns by people of legal age. If they commit a felony, they lose their rights to possess firearms. If they are caught with a firearm after losing their rights to possess one they go to jail, they stay in jail, they don't get out on early release, period. No license, no permit, just an ability and willingness to play by the rules.

    Some dope gets caught brandishing a weapon he gets it taken away from him, if he gets caught using it unsafely he gets it taken away from him, if he gets caught poaching he gets it taken away from him. Next move is up to him on how bad he wants to keep his freedom to work, walk the streets and go to the beach. None of this 3 strikes and your out. You know the rules, they are taught in school when the physical education teacher teaches gun safety and marksmanship classes to the young ones.

    If somebody doesn't like that kind of society they are free to move to a gun free Utopia. That sure would eliminate a lot of liberal politicians form the governmental payroll. Just don't expect me to come and visit them in there Utopia. I would feel safer on the streets where I know most everybody can carry and probably are.

    Those are all good points, but if I may add my thoughts on the first sentence of your post. "If they commit a felony, they lose their rights to possess firearms"

    I dont agree with that, unless they are convicted of a felony crime involving violence.

    Here in the USA, over the last 10-15 years more and more non-violent misdemeanor offenses are being changed over to felonies.

    Now, I do not advocate committing ANY crime at all. But many of us (yes many readers of this thread) have accidentally committed non-violent crimes.
    For instance if you make a mistake on your taxes, you could be a non-violent felon. Does that mean you should have your firearms taken away?

    Perhaps you were speeding too fast in a construction zone? Yes, that is very very foolish and dangerous, but in some states you could get smacked with a felony. Even if nobody was harmed.

    I think we need to look at the nature of the crime and not lump all crimes as potential gun grabber opportunities.

    :
    "Let your gun be your constant companion during your walks" ~Thomas Jefferson

  4. #4
    Regular Member Old Grump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Blue River, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    As a matter of fact I agree with you. I assumed since we were talking gun crimes and violent crimes that the felony would be violence related. A tax cheat or crooked gambler doesn't fall into the same class as a moral moron who tries to rob the nearest innocent looking person with a weapon or threat of force of any kind. I should have been clearer but I was a slow typist typing fast and did not proof read.
    Roman Catholic, Life Member of American Legion, VFW, Wisconsin Libertarian party, Wi-FORCE, WGO, NRA, JPFO, GOA, SAF and CCRKBA

  5. #5
    Regular Member Sig229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    926

    Post imported post

    Old Grump wrote:
    As a matter of fact I agree with you. I assumed since we were talking gun crimes and violent crimes that the felony would be violence related. A tax cheat or crooked gambler doesn't fall into the same class as a moral moron who tries to rob the nearest innocent looking person with a weapon or threat of force of any kind. I should have been clearer but I was a slow typist typing fast and did not proof read.
    Its not your fault at all man.

    I was sure you thought the same way, I just wanted to drive the point home.
    "Let your gun be your constant companion during your walks" ~Thomas Jefferson

  6. #6
    Regular Member Haz.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    I come from a land downunder.
    Posts
    1,227

    Post imported post

    Love ya Old Grump, no need to explain, we understand, your all right mate!I'd like to take you fishing on my boat one day,only your too far away LOL.
    Haz.
    When a criminal invades your home and has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.

    My Definition of Gun Control: The idea that dozens of people found dead in the Broadway Café, Tasmania, and many also seriously wounded, all while waiting for police, who were called to show up and protect them, is somehow morally superior to having several armed and therefore alive civilian's explaining to police how the attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    You would be naive to expect much in the way of logic or reason from police officials.

    Police enjoy, far too much, what I call the swagger factor. They love the looks they get from women and children as they saunter about with guns on their hips.

    When America began to take a more reasoned approach to guns in the '90s police executives and administrators began such ******* and moaning that one would have thought Western Civilization itself was being sacrificed.

    When the cliche warnings about blood in the streets failed to materialize, police and others simply increased the volume. Twenty years later it's the same song, different verse. Police, especially executives, indeed gun-banners of all stripes call to mind the adage: A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

    Remember, in modern Western culture the police, like any other civil servants, must be watched carefully -- Britain being the best exemplar. Never turn your life over to them.

    Sorry, I just had to vent.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by old dog View Post
    When the cliche warnings about blood in the streets failed to materialize, police and others simply increased the volume. Twenty years later it's the same song, different verse.
    And our crime is way down, too!

    Remember, in modern Western culture the police, like any other civil servants, must be watched carefully...
    That's what our Founding Fathers said, many times and in many ways (letters, speeches, etc.), not the least of which involved the enactment of the 1st and 2nd Amendments.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •