American shootings

[disco man]

Yet another shooting in the USA this time in Vegas. How many more lives will be lost over there before something is done.I have spent a bit of time in the states and what shocked me was the love of guns some people have over there,the further south you go the more the love gets stronger.

A bloke i met at a car show in Alabama invited me to his place for a BBQ and to say i was blown away by his cache of guns was a understatement. In the Chev truck a colt 45 in the glovebox a 9mm pistol under the seat a single barrel shotgun behind the seats.

He also showed me some what looked like military grade weapons,in total i would say this bloke would have close to 20 guns between the house and car.But all his friends at the BBQ all had around the same sort of arsenal of guns and to all of them it just seemed normal even natural.


When i told them about Queensland gun laws they were horrified at what they called the lack of freedom to buy and own guns that Queenslander's have.In the mid-west states you can't walk far down a street without coming across a gun shop,i don't remember the state in was in at the time but i was able to obtain a temp permit to buy a pistol and after a few weeks cooling of period i could buy whatever the shop was selling if i wanted to bloody crazy!!!


You can buy guns at department stores in the sports section,in Texas so many people walk around with guns on the hip very strange sight for a Aussie or Kiwi.In LA i was pulled over for some dodgy driving as i was still getting used to the road rules.The cop had his gun drawn as he approached the car another first for me.

The culture SOME Americans have towards guns is just plain crazy and i think because of how strong that culture is the thought of changing the laws will never happen.I was just wondering if anyone had some thoughts or anything to add on this topic because i for one just don't understand it.

[nealo]

Its always a touchy subject, though you have asked the questions in a fact seeking, non hysterical manner. I applaude you, so I'll have a crack at adding to the thread

I believe the US have such a close connection with their firearms is that they really are the birthplace of the modern firearms we see today.
A collectors passion for Single Action Army Colts, and 1911's could be likened to our passion for Holdens, and the appreciation for the ingenuity, engineering, and historical value. Remember we were only just colonised whilst they were busy having a civil war!!
I believe this close connection to their history has created the so called culture, and the passion for collecting
In Australia it has just created bogans and hoons!!:p:p

I also own close to 20 firearms, but is that also an arsenal ?...many of my friends own similar quantities or more. You'd be surprised how many people out there have these "arsenals", but they all have their specific legitimate use for competition use or vermin destruction

Some of mine are military grade (WW2 303's :p), and we owe many of our current firearms and calibres to military advancements. Many modern sporting firearms use the same action as the military ones, except they arent black and scary.

Once upon a time you could also buy firearms in K-Mart in Australia!!!, but that was in SA, and well...its SA :p

These are my thoughts...hope this gives another persons point of view
(and haven't offended any South Australians)

[disco man]

Its always a touchy subject, though you have asked the questions in a fact seeking, non hysterical manner. I applaude you, so I'll have a crack at adding to the thread

I believe the US have such a close connection with their firearms is that they really are the birthplace of the modern firearms we see today.
A collectors passion for Single Action Army Colts, and 1911's could be likened to our passion for Holdens, and the appreciation for the ingenuity, engineering, and historical value. Remember we were only just colonised whilst they were busy having a civil war!!
I believe this close connection to their history has created the so called culture, and the passion for collecting
In Australia it has just created bogans and hoons!!:p:p

I also own close to 20 firearms, but is that also an arsenal ?...many of my friends own similar quantities or more. You'd be surprised how many people out there have these "arsenals", but they all have their specific legitimate use for competition use or vermin destruction

Some of mine are military grade (WW2 303's :p), and we owe many of our current firearms and calibres to military advancements. Many modern sporting firearms use the same action as the military ones, except they arent black and scary.

Once upon a time you could also buy firearms in K-Mart in Australia!!!, but that was in SA, and well...its SA :p

These are my thoughts...hope this gives another persons point of view
(and haven't offended any South Australians)

Thanks for the reply mate good info in there,maybe arsenal is a strong word so no offence meant by that.

[nealo]

No worries

Unfortunately these shooting are very sad, and the latest is no different

No doubt we will go through the "disarm the public" hysteria again as usual and the media will run with it and get every $$ they can out of it.

Criminals don't care if a firearm is licensed, prohibited, illegal etc...they are criminals! In this latest incident they just seem to be complete whacko's!!

[disco man]

Yep criminals don't give a ****,but what i found troubling while i was in the states was the ease in which firearms can be obtained.I feel everybody has the right to defend themselves,family,property or even enjoy hunting so disarming the public is not the answer and i don't know what the answer is.

But steps need to be taken to stop nutjobs being able to kill people so easily.

[discovery39]

Something for us all to look forward to here in OZ..........
As more and more people become unemployed, and can't afford the things they need.
(or as they see it, want).

[nealo]

More people are killed with motor vehicles per year than firearms. Its awfully easy to get a license for one of them !!
Judging by the amount of idiots behind the wheel more should be done to control these lunatics


Woah..now I'm starting to wander off topic, before you know it we'll be discussing culling sharks :p

[discovery39]

Yes, it does seem an idiotic idea culling the Sharks, given that they probably have more respect for one another than we do.................

[olbod]

The yanks have got it right.
Culling people is a better idea than culling sharks.

And here I was thinking that they were becoming a nation of sick people.

[ramblingboy42]

this must be why we are suddenly running out of ammo

[phibbzy]

Looks like they were engaged & wounded by an armed civilian after which they took their own lives.

That person clearly has balls the size of durian fruit.

Anyway, they don't have any issues with their gun laws. Mass killings are an issue with how the media portrays anti-hero's and mental health.

[Ausfree]

That was a very interesting opening post Disco Man, has me thinking a lot about firearms. I have never been to the USA and so I'm not an expert on the situation there but I have heard from more than one source how "natural" it is in places like Texas to walk down the street with a sidearm on your hip.

In my opinion (and that's all it is) firearms were primarily design to kill, whether it be animals for food or killing people. I really can't see in a modern civilized society why you need to walk down the street wearing a firearm.

In places like some dangerous African nations, yes I can see the sense in it, but not in a modern free country.

Americans carry on about "The right to bear arms", but we have to remember this was written into their Constitution several hundred year ago when they were going through a difficult time in their history. Is it REALLY necessary nowadays to bear arms, America (and us) are not the 1860's frontier anymore.

I believe we have got it right, making it harder to own a firearm, so that nutters, when they do go off the rails can't grab a gun and go out and shoot a dozen people. Sure hardened criminals can access guns but they have to have their contacts to do this. I don't think you will ever stamp out the illegal
trade in firearms.

Am I anti-gun?????? No of cause not, if people want to own guns for things such as farmers for vermin control and and sports shooters shooting at inanimate targets as long as they are properly licenced, I don't have a problem with that.

In America, it seems to me to be out of control with too many powerful lobby groups having say over government policy. The spokespeople for the National Rifle Association of America keep telling us the "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Well. I tell you what ........it would be harder for a nutter to kill several people if he/she did not have a gun.


My 2c worth, but I'm no expert, this is only my opinion.

[korg20000bc]

In the US their constitution provides for the right to bear arms, not for self defence (though that's assumed),but solely so that the citizens can defend themselves from their own government.
History has plenty to teach us about government, rebellion, firearms and confiscation. It is interesting to look at historical gun confiscations and what follows.

[disco man]

That was a very interesting opening post Disco Man, has me thinking a lot about firearms. I have never been to the USA and so I'm not an expert on the situation there but I have heard from more than one source how "natural" it is in places like Texas to walk down the street with a sidearm on your hip.

In my opinion (and that's all it is) firearms were primarily design to kill, whether it be animals for food or killing people. I really can't see in a modern civilized society why you need to walk down the street wearing a firearm.

In places like some dangerous African nations, yes I can see the sense in it, but not in a modern free country.

Americans carry on about "The right to bear arms", but we have to remember this was written into their Constitution several hundred year ago when they were going through a difficult time in their history. Is it REALLY necessary nowadays to bear arms, America (and us) are not the 1860's frontier anymore.

I believe we have got it right, making it harder to own a firearm, so that nutters, when they do go off the rails can't grab a gun and go out and shoot a dozen people. Sure hardened criminals can access guns but they have to have their contacts to do this. I don't think you will ever stamp out the illegal
trade in firearms.

Am I anti-gun?????? No of cause not, if people want to own guns for things such as farmers for vermin control and and sports shooters shooting at inanimate targets as long as they are properly licenced, I don't have a problem with that.

In America, it seems to me to be out of control with too many powerful lobby groups having say over government policy. The spokespeople for the National Rifle Association of America keep telling us the "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Well. I tell you what ........it would be harder for a nutter to kill several people if he/she did not have a gun.


My 2c worth, but I'm no expert, this is only my opinion.

Very well said Mr free you put it better than i could

[PAT303]

I'm a member of a US shooting forum like this one,the members are about bettering their skills in both shooting and reloading,many fill their freezers with meat harvested from the land,all up very down to earth people,go elsewhere and it's all about 30 shot ''clips'' and tacticool clothing and ''I shoot first ask Q's later'' BS.I don't think it would matter what they did in the US now,there is too many firearms in circulation and too much paranoia. Pat

[korg20000bc]

Too many firearms doesnt mean jack if they can restrict amunition.
I reckon that how the US will try to reduce access to firearms. Trillions of round of ammunition have been purchased by domestic government departments recently.

[disco man]

I'm a member of a US shooting forum like this one,the members are about bettering their skills in both shooting and reloading,many fill their freezers with meat harvested from the land,all up very down to earth people,go elsewhere and it's all about 30 shot ''clips'' and tacticool clothing and ''I shoot first ask Q's later'' BS.I don't think it would matter what they did in the US now,there is too many firearms in circulation and too much paranoia. Pat

G'day pat,when your on that American forum what do the people on there make of those mass shootings? i guess what i am also trying to say is how do gauge from reading posts how bad is it?

Like i said in my opening post i was shocked at the culture i saw.

[Ausfree]

Too many firearms doesnt mean jack if they can restrict amunition.
I reckon that how the US will try to reduce access to firearms. Trillions of round of ammunition have been purchased by domestic government departments recently.

With all the ammo in America, would they have enough money?????

[nealo]

Paranoia...who generates that??

The media are the biggest causes of the paranoia. Sure mainstream media can be educating, but they have alot to answer for with their scaremongering and sometime inaccurate reports of the truth

Guns are scary, especially black ones, because the media says so

Person gets shot...hysteria, hang him, ban guns, massive reform
Driver runs down elderly gentleman...we put it down to just another number on the road toll

I'm certainly not trying to take anything away from the horrible loss of the 2 x police officers, but we seem to find someone killing people with a car morally acceptable judging by the how we react to it

[Ausfree]

Paranoia...who generates that??

The media are the biggest causes of the paranoia. Sure mainstream media can be educating, but they have alot to answer for with their scaremongering and sometime inaccurate reports of the truth

Guns are scary, especially black ones, because the media says so

Person gets shot...hysteria, hang him, ban guns, massive reform
Driver runs down elderly gentleman...we put it down to just another number on the road toll

I'm certainly not trying to take anything away from the horrible loss of the 2 x police officers, but we seem to find someone killing people with a car morally acceptable judging by the how we react to it
I don't get your point. An elderly gentlemen is run down by a car and killed, soooo............ that's one person accidently killed. A maniac with a gun can kill maybe 30 people (has happened), when was the last time you heard of somebody in a car running down 30 people in one go.:confused:

[mox]

With Obama trying to get tougher gun laws pushed through, result has been heavy demand for ammunition and new firearms there. According to one major Australian importer, it made those from US harder to get here recently. Seems after firearms owners have seen what happened in UK and Australia they will fight very hard. Looks like efforts of anti gun activists are largely having the opposite effects of those intended.

[Tote]

We have just spent 6 weeks traveling around the US and I'd have to say that the gun culture isn't as evident to the casual observer as you may think. Yes, you can buy rifles in some department stores and in Texas we saw lots of stickers suggesting that they would rather shoot an intruder than call 911 but we have people driving around with stickers suggesting that they would like to run down and kill your stick figure family, pretty much the same level of bravado methinks.
As for people carrying in public I cannot recall seeing anyone other than law enforcement carrying guns.
I'm not sure whether our gun laws have much effect except on suicide numbers. As for the illegal gun trade the horse has well and truly bolted on that one and in a country with exceptionally tight handgun controls there seems to be no shortage of pistols and ammo for the gangs in Sydney to shoot at each other with.
Having said that I think we have somewhere near the right balance with the difficulty of getting a licence but it concerns me that with guns becoming less common it is easier for interest groups to demonise them instead of them being thought of as a tool which is what they are.

Regards
Tote

[nealo]

A vehicle is capable of killing and maiming many people at once, as is a firearm, but I agree, doesn't happen very often.
My point was I comparing one cause of deaths v's another irrelevant of the number of victims, and how it is reported and accepted by community
Just today in WA a 14 yr old boy was run over on a footpath in Perth. There's not much on the news, but had it involved a firearm I'm sure it would be pretty widespread news...hey we even have to watch out for motorised eskies on the road in WA. :p

At the end of the day they are both inanimate pieces of machinery, and without human input are harmless

[vnx205]

If a person used a motor vehicle or anything else to deliberately kill a number of people, it would get similar media coverage to a similar number killed with a gun.

Motor vehicle deaths are usually an accident or the result of drunkenness, carelessness or maybe even stupidity. They usually don't involve someone deliberately setting out to massacre people.

Your comparison isn't reasonable.

[PAT303]

G'day pat,when your on that American forum what do the people on there make of those mass shootings? i guess what i am also trying to say is how do gauge from reading posts how bad is it?

Like i said in my opening post i was shocked at the culture i saw.

Bloody scary is the response.The Tacticool mall ninja's are all ''If I was there I'd finish it real quick'',''Yeh I'd drop him with my something magnum loaded with X your dead as soon as it hits bullets",for me it's just crazy their whole mentality.For the old guard who like to shoot a few groups on a saturday morning for a bit of fun and enjoyment,they don't get the senseless waste,for them,I'm one of them see firearms as a sport not as an ego trip. Pat

[PAT303]

Too many firearms doesnt mean jack if they can restrict amunition.
I reckon that how the US will try to reduce access to firearms. Trillions of round of ammunition have been purchased by domestic government departments recently.

Sorry but it doesn't work that way,except for .22's I haven't bought ammunition for over a decade and I shoot every week,I cast and load all my ammunition myself and with a day or two's notice could keep myself supplied for years. Pat

[PAT303]

We have just spent 6 weeks traveling around the US and I'd have to say that the gun culture isn't as evident to the casual observer as you may think. Yes, you can buy rifles in some department stores and in Texas we saw lots of stickers suggesting that they would rather shoot an intruder than call 911 but we have people driving around with stickers suggesting that they would like to run down and kill your stick figure family, pretty much the same level of bravado methinks.
As for people carrying in public I cannot recall seeing anyone other than law enforcement carrying guns.
I'm not sure whether our gun laws have much effect except on suicide numbers. As for the illegal gun trade the horse has well and truly bolted on that one and in a country with exceptionally tight handgun controls there seems to be no shortage of pistols and ammo for the gangs in Sydney to shoot at each other with.
Having said that I think we have somewhere near the right balance with the difficulty of getting a licence but it concerns me that with guns becoming less common it is easier for interest groups to demonise them instead of them being thought of as a tool which is what they are.

Regards
Tote
Concealed carry is why you didn't see any of them,I don't know about now but in some area's in Texas it was illegal to not have a firearm on you in public. Pat

[PAT303]

If a person used a motor vehicle or anything else to deliberately kill a number of people, it would get similar media coverage to a similar number killed with a gun.

Motor vehicle deaths are usually an accident or the result of drunkenness, carelessness or maybe even stupidity. They usually don't involve someone deliberately setting out to massacre people.

Your comparison isn't reasonable.

Innocent people are still dead either way,being drunk or speeding is not an excuse. Pat

[mox]

Thanks to social media and other Internet sites, views and information which differs from what the mainstream media will provide can now get much more widely circulated. MSM has generally sided with anti gun activists. Has been drawn to my attention recently that some major shootings have been "false flags", or at least suspected of being "psyops" These are when for the purpose of pursuing hidden agendas, the perpetrators arrange for an atrocity to be committed while directing the blame to someone else.


It is now obvious that some of the alleged "Lone Nut Gunman" type shootings /massacres have actually been arranged by activists to drum up anti gun hysteria to facilitate pushing tough gun laws through. These include Dunblane and Port Arthur. Now with the aid of eg Google searches though, information which authorities and the MSM have tried to keep hidden can be examined. Try "Port Arthur Massacre Coverup " or similar. Of course many people will try and claim stuff that comes up is nothing more than conspiracy theories by gun nuts. However, any intelligent person who has studied details realises that the official story includes a lot of lies. Especially that Martin Bryant, who eventually pleaded guilty to shootings after a long period of being pressured was innocent and could not have been convicted on the evidence.


Apparently the Sandy Hook incident of Dec 2012 is now widely regarded as "Shady Hoax", with details about it the mainstream media initially ignored now being circulated. Seems now sceptics are becoming more likely to look for characteristics of "false flag" incidents. The following is a check list guide: (to which the more recent Elliot Rodger incident seems to fit!) ie:
- "Lone Nut Gunman" person selected to be set up is of low intelligence and social misfit, with few friends or relatives likely to support him.
- Gunman commits suicide after shootings (usually and supposedly)
- " Lone Nut Gunman" ID'd within a very short time, contrary to standard police operating procedures.
- Media barrage of BS calling for tougher gun laws.
- Almost invariably, some parents or relatives of victims will be featured prominently in media calling for gun control and blaming law abiding gun owners for tragedy.
- Many politicians jump on anti gun band wagon.


It should also be noted that sometimes role players in the "false flag" reveal their involvement by saying and /or doing things too soon to be a reaction to what has happened. Also, sometimes falsified supposed evidence can be detected. eg Including those familiar with photoshop techniques picking "doctored" details on supposed evidence photos. .


There will hopefully be further investigations into who were the real criminals responsible arranging false flag shootings. Also those participating in subsequent coverups. Undoubtedly this will reduce the number of future ones.


In Australia , looks like we haven't had any false flag shootings since Port Arthur in 1996. According to anti gun propaganda, this is because of tougher gun laws subsequently introduced. More likely because it included big unplanned stuff ups. Firstly, victims obviously included some people involved in the conspiracy after it proved impracticable to target the originally planned group. Then attempts to have the "patsy", Martin Bryant supposedly commit suicide or be killed in a shootout failed. Next plan to have him die in Seascape Cottage accidentally on purpose set on fire also failed. Seemed he looked drugged (but obviously not enough)when he came running out yelling "Don't shoot - I am the hostage" and suffering severe burns. Obviously had been cajoled to act as hostage in a supposed police exercise. That left a major problem: Bryant would need to be deemed guilty of shootings. As evidence could have readily disproved this, it proved necessary to subject him to obviously extreme duress for several months to persuade him to plead guilty.


As it becomes more widely realise the official PAM report is in some ways a fairy story, hopefully support can be gained for Martin Bryant to have a proper trial and his convictions quashed. Also, for a Royal Commission to fully establish what happened. Undoubtedly if processes of the law are followed properly, several prominent politicians, police and public servants would be among those guilty of being accessories before and/or after the fact. The apparent real gunman committed suicide several months after the massacre. A young and naïve crack shot who was most likely cajoled to do the job. Also, suicide most likely result of comprehending the atrocity he had committed.

[vnx205]

Innocent people are still dead either way,being drunk or speeding is not an excuse. Pat

I'm not condoning drunkenness or negligent driving.

I am just pointing out that the motivation of the person responsible for the deaths makes a big difference to the sort of media coverage the deaths reveal.

It is the intent to massacre people that makes big news, not the implement used.

[roversmith]

If a person used a motor vehicle or anything else to deliberately kill a number of people, it would get similar media coverage to a similar number killed with a gun.

Motor vehicle deaths are usually an accident or the result of drunkenness, carelessness or maybe even stupidity. They usually don't involve someone deliberately setting out to massacre people.

Your comparison isn't reasonable.




On the evening of 18 August 1983, Crabbe spent an hour at the Inland Motel bar before being refused service for Alcohol intoxication - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The bar was part of the Inland Motel, a short distance from the base of Uluru - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. It was on the eastern side of the rock, a few minutes walk from the camp site from which Death of Azaria Chamberlain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia disappeared in 1980 but which had closed by August 1983. Crabbe, then aged 36,[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Crabbe#cite_note-NTSC-2) walked behind the bar and confronted bar staff before being involved in a fight and being ejected from the premises at 12.30am.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Crabbe#cite_note-NTSC-2)
He then walked approximately 500 metres to his parked Mack truck, and drove it to the nearby Uluru Motel, where he unhitched one of Road train - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Crabbe then drove the truck and one trailer back to the Inland Motel. According to witness Martin Fisher:
"Crabbe then maneuvered the 25 ton Semi and trailer, at speed, around a blind bend, through a car park, around a Minibus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, turned and drove it through the Besser brick wall into the crowded bar, crushing the people there. Leaving the engine running, he then got out of the truck, smiled down at one of his victims, stepped over some bodies and ran. This was at 1.10am. It had been 40 minutes between being thrown out and driving the truck into the bar. He was captured the next morning walking out of the bush 22 kilometres away." [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Crabbe#cite_note-NTSC-2)
It was estimated that fewer than 50 people were in the bar at the time of the crash. Many of the customers were construction workers from the nearby resort project of Yulara, which was being constructed to replace the Inland Motel and two neighbouring motels to allow the ground around Uluru to revert to its natural state.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Crabbe#cite_note-Haupt.2C_Robert_1983.2C_p.1-5)
Witnesses likened the impact of the truck hitting the motel to that of a bomb exploding. The truck had penetrated the building to the length of one trailer. The truck remained in place after impact, and was the only thing holding up the building's roof. After the crash the dining room adjacent to the bar became an emergency clinic for the injured.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Crabbe#cite_note-Haupt.2C_Robert_1983.2C_p.1-5) Four people were killed instantly in the crash. A fifth person died in a hospital in Alice Springs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Springs,_Northern_Territory) after surgeons worked for five and a half hours attempting to save her life.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Crabbe#cite_note-6) The 35 year old woman had sustained severe internal injuries.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Crabbe#cite_note-ReferenceB-7)
Crabbe's capture occurred at the Yulara Tourist Village construction site after a search by police and Aboriginal trackers.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Crabbe#cite_note-ReferenceB-7) The Yulara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yulara,_Northern_Territory) settlement is a distance of several kilometres from the former site of the Inland Motel. William Hugh O'Neill, the catering manager from the Yulara Construction Camp, testified that he found Crabbe walking towards him near the construction camp on the morning of 18 August. Crabbe waited with O'Neill for police to arrive, asking the extent of the damage to the motel. Crabbe was informed by O'Neill that at least four people had died, including "one of my boys from the kitchen".[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Crabbe#cite_note-ReferenceA-3)
Trials[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php'title=Douglas_Crabbe&action=edit&section=3&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro)]

At an October 1983 court hearing a police video taken on 18 August 1983 was shown to the court. It showed the bodies of the four people killed instantly - two men and two women - in the makeshift mortuary set up at the back of the motel. It also showed the damage to the bar area of the motel, with clothes and boots embedded in the ground under the truck and near its bloodstained Bullbar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, from which the officer who took the video said many of the dead had been pulled. Crabbe, charged with five counts of murder at the hearing, sat expressionless as the video was shown.
Ronald Slinn, a building manager from Yulara, told the court he was hit by the truck, jamming his left leg under the front axle. He managed to drag himself out and found his 45-year-old wife Patricia Slinn half underneath with her face downward; she had been killed instantly. A motel guest testified he saw a man, later identified from police photographs as Crabbe, running as if fleeing something. The man told the guest "Okay mate, I'm not going any further. I've gone far enough." After leaving to get help the guest found that the man had disappeared.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Crabbe#cite_note-8)
At the trial in March 1984 a witness testified that Crabbe had been rude and aggressive in the bar. This witness reported she had later seen Crabbe on the floor of the bar, being held down by three men. A second witness corroborated that a man had been involved in a scuffle with three men. The witness testified that after the truck crashed into the bar he saw the man who had been involved in the scuffle leave the truck's cabin and exit "very quickly" towards the rear of the truck via the gaping hole the truck left in the side of the building. The witness had been knocked down by the truck.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Crabbe#cite_note-9)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Crabbe#cite_note-10)
Crabbe offered no reason for his actions. At trial he pleaded memory loss from his removal of the second trailer until waking to the sound of the truck's exhaust amid the damaged bar room after impact.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Crabbe#cite_note-The_Australian_Time_Capsule-11) He was convicted of all five counts of murder by a jury.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Crabbe#cite_note-NTSC-2) The judge sentenced him to the mandatory term of Life imprisonment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia on each count of murder, each term to run consecutively. Asked if he had anything to say, Crabbe replied "No, nothing." [12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Crabbe#cite_note-12) Crabbe later appealed to the Federal Court of Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, which found that the judge at the original trial had erred in his summing up to the jury and the convictions were set aside and a retrial ordered. The Crown then appealed that decision to the High Court of Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, but this was dismissed.
Crabbe pleaded not guilty at his second trial which was held in the Darwin, Northern Territory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin,_Northern_Territory) Supreme court - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia in 1985. This trial concluded on 7 October 1985 when a second jury convicted him on all five counts of murder. Crabbe was again sentenced to five consecutive terms of life imprisonment.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Crabbe#cite_note-13)
In 2004, the Northern Territory's mandatory 'life means life' legislation was repealed and an automatic 25 year non-parole period was fixed under the new laws. Later that year, the Northern Territory DPP applied to fix a longer non-parole period, and Supreme Court of the Northern Territory increased that to a thirty-year minimum (the longest in the Northern Territory's history) backdated to 18 August 1983, the day of the murders and his arrest, to be served at the Alice Springs Correctional Centre.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Crabbe#cite_note-14)
In early 2005, Crabbe was moved to a prison in Perth, Western Australia after strong pleas from his family, including his sister, Flo.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Crabbe#cite_note-abcreport-1) Crabbe became eligible for release on parole on 18 August 2013 at the age of 66. His parole application was rejected 5 September 2013. [15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Crabbe#cite_note-15)
Crabbe will now be eligible for parole again in 2016, at the age of 69; if he is paroled, he will be on parole for the rest of his life.
In popular culture[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php'title=Douglas_Crabbe&action=edit&section=4&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro)]

The episode was documented by Australian rock band Hunters & Collectors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia on their 1984 album The Jaws of Life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, with the lyrics of the opening track, "42 Wheels", sung from Crabbe's point of view. The original artwork

[nealo]

Wow!! I'd never even heard of that one, but I'd heard of the Fathers Day Massacre. I guess this was what I was trying to explain, sorry for any confusion.
I was only a young fella back then, and both were at about the same time.
Were both reported to the same extent? They probably were, but.. I think we dismiss items subconsciously over a period of time because we accept vehicles as such an ingrained part of everyday life.

[vnx205]

It got quite a bit of media coverage in 1984, which illustrates the point I was making.

[nealo]

I agree that it certainly would have been an important news topic back then, but it would be interesting to know how many people remember both.
I think that in recent times I have heard references to the Fathers Day, Hoddle St and Queen St shootings more than the truck incident, which until now I had no idea it even existed
The Childers Fire also another tragedy, as well as Churchill and the Quakers Hill Nursing Home fires we were unfortunate to experience in our so called "developed nation"
I suppose it's our own personal makeup that decides what we want to remember, but did we ban matches or road trains?? Society needs to look at the root cause, usually criminals or the mentally unstable. Is there an answer ??

[85 county]

U.S. city makes it illegal not to own a gun

NELSON, GEORGIA

Kennesaw GA
Goreville Illinois

And they have the lowest crime rates in America and lower than Australia, makes you think really.

I have worked as a culler in both NZ and Australia, both walk-in and helo

In Australia I am limited to larger caliber ( have to use a 3##) no semi auto, antiquated furniture and miniature mags.
In NZ a colt in 222, suppressed and a 30 round mag

The NZ law is much more sensible. the Australian law is stupid.

[nealo]

Sweet as bro!
NZ sure is odd when compared to us, given we are damn near the same place...apart fom the sheep thing :p
When I attended a shooting competition over there, standard capacity mags held 27 +1, sound moderators are encouraged for hunting, and semi-auto rifles are common place. The gun shops could tell that we were from Aus as they had to wipe the drool off the counters !!

[roversmith]

It got quite a bit of media coverage in 1984, which illustrates the point I was making.


Rest my case.


They usually don't involve someone deliberately setting out to massacre people.

[disco man]

Bloody scary is the response.The Tacticool mall ninja's are all ''If I was there I'd finish it real quick'',''Yeh I'd drop him with my something magnum loaded with X your dead as soon as it hits bullets",for me it's just crazy their whole mentality.For the old guard who like to shoot a few groups on a saturday morning for a bit of fun and enjoyment,they don't get the senseless waste,for them,I'm one of them see firearms as a sport not as an ego trip. Pat

Bloody hell that is scary mate!!! Thanks for that info

[akelly]

Another blow to the myth of the "good guy with a gun"; concealed carry guy confronts shooters, gets killed.

Las Vegas Cop Killers Were Husband-Wife Team - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/US/las-vegas-cop-killers-husband-wife-team/story?id=24052877)

Also: cars and trucks are for transport. Sure they can kill, but that's not what they are for. A lawnmower can kill, as can a toaster or a bit of string. A sidearm is for killing people, no other purpose.

Cheers,

Adam

[Ausfree]

Another blow to the myth of the "good guy with a gun"; concealed carry guy confronts shooters, gets killed.

Las Vegas Cop Killers Were Husband-Wife Team - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/US/las-vegas-cop-killers-husband-wife-team/story?id=24052877)

Also: cars and trucks are for transport. Sure they can kill, but that's not what they are for. A lawnmower can kill, as can a toaster or a bit of string. A sidearm is for killing people, no other purpose.

Cheers,

Adam

That's the point I was trying to make several posts ago. A gun is designed for no other purpose than to kill. It has no other function.

[akelly]

That's the point I was trying to make several posts ago. A gun is designed for no other purpose than to kill. It has no other function.

Well, I agree as long as we're talking sidearms, not all guns - because obviously a .22 long rifle isn't designed to kill people... :)

[Ausfree]

Well, I agree as long as we're talking sidearms, not all guns - because obviously a .22 long rifle isn't designed to kill people... :)

I did not say they are designed to kill people, I said they are designed to kill. A .22's function is just the same..................just ask a rabbit!!!!:p

[akelly]

I did not say they are designed to kill people, I said they are designed to kill. A .22's function is just the same..................just ask a rabbit!!!!:p

then we aren't saying the same thing.

[460cixy]

Another blow to the myth of the "good guy with a gun"; concealed carry guy confronts shooters, gets killed.

Las Vegas Cop Killers Were Husband-Wife Team - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/US/las-vegas-cop-killers-husband-wife-team/story?id=24052877)

Also: cars and trucks are for transport. Sure they can kill, but that's not what they are for. A lawnmower can kill, as can a toaster or a bit of string. A sidearm is for killing people, no other purpose.

Cheers,

Adam


Ahh was wondering when you would turn up to kill this topic .

[460cixy]

Well, I agree as long as we're talking sidearms, not all guns - because obviously a .22 long rifle isn't designed to kill people... :)

Another sign of your great ignorance

[waz]

Actually, "good-guy-with-a-gun" is not a myth. It worked in this situation. The criminals were stopped by "good-guys-with-guns".

All three of the victims were "good-guys-with-guns". Two were police officers and one was not.

Two were paid to be there, and one was not. He chose to stand up to the criminals. Yes, he died, but he died trying to save others.

Show some god-damn respect.

[Greatsouthernland]

If a person used a motor vehicle or anything else to deliberately kill a number of people, it would get similar media coverage to a similar number killed with a gun.

Motor vehicle deaths are usually an accident or the result of drunkenness, carelessness or maybe even stupidity. They usually don't involve someone deliberately setting out to massacre people.

Your comparison isn't reasonable.

:facepalm:

Check out this video on YouTube:

Mad driver runs over dozens of cyclists during critical mass in Brazil - YouTube (http://youtu.be/GnR2ysyaoH4)

.

[Greatsouthernland]

Its always a touchy subject, though you have asked the questions in a fact seeking, non hysterical manner. I applaude you, so I'll have a crack at adding to the thread

I believe the US have such a close connection with their firearms is that they really are the birthplace of the modern firearms we see today.
A collectors passion for Single Action Army Colts, and 1911's could be likened to our passion for Holdens, and the appreciation for the ingenuity, engineering, and historical value. Remember we were only just colonised whilst they were busy having a civil war!!
I believe this close connection to their history has created the so called culture, and the passion for collecting
In Australia it has just created bogans and hoons!!:p:p

I also own close to 20 firearms, but is that also an arsenal ?...many of my friends own similar quantities or more. You'd be surprised how many people out there have these "arsenals", but they all have their specific legitimate use for competition use or vermin destruction

Some of mine are military grade (WW2 303's :p), and we owe many of our current firearms and calibres to military advancements. Many modern sporting firearms use the same action as the military ones, except they arent black and scary.

Once upon a time you could also buy firearms in K-Mart in Australia!!!, but that was in SA, and well...its SA :p

These are my thoughts...hope this gives another persons point of view
(and haven't offended any South Australians)

Ah the good old days :p I bought my first shotgun and ammo from Kmart at Pt Adelaide in the 90s. Obviously I had to show a license, but the checkout chic didn't look too long at it.

Nope not offending this SouthAussie :D What I think is strange though, is how much air time / paper time / forum time someone gets when they are "offended" by a firearm or their existence. Maybe they'll be happy when only the criminals are left holding them, after all the legal licensed ones are collected...

As a MD of a large company, a father of two and licensed firearm owner, I often do my bit to help our struggling farmers in their losing battle against vermin. If you'd seen what foxes do to lambs and calves, even full grown sheep, you'd get the picture. In other states it's worse with the wild dogs and pigs. Then there's feral deer, goats, camels, etc.. I think we need more RESPONSIBLE people getting into hunting and shooting sports.

[vnx205]

I assume the posts about the incidents at Uluru and in Brazil have been posted to support my suggestion that most vehicle related deaths are not deliberate murder or massacres and that on the rare occasions that they are, the media gives them a lot of coverage.

Or have I missed something?

[Greatsouthernland]

I assume the posts about the incidents at Uluru and in Brazil have been posted to support my suggestion that most vehicle related deaths are not deliberate murder or massacres and that on the rare occasions that they are, the media gives them a lot of coverage.

Or have I missed something?

My reply at least was to put into perspective the part of your comment below...not saying you were deliberately inaccurate or vague, but to me it seemed a statement of fact that was incorrect (albeit accidental I'm sure).

No malice intended :D



...Motor vehicle deaths are usually ... They usually don't involve someone deliberately setting out to massacre people.

Your comparison isn't reasonable.

[PAT303]

That's the point I was trying to make several posts ago. A gun is designed for no other purpose than to kill. It has no other function.

You are showing not only your ignorance but a complete lack of knowledge saying this,firearms designed to kill people are totally different to firearms designed to hunt or for target competition,as is the type of ammunition they fire and the way both types of firearms are used. Pat

[waz]

comment removed....

Not really on topic or relevant.

continue....

[vnx205]

My reply at least was to put into perspective the part of your comment below...not saying you were deliberately inaccurate or vague, but to me it seemed a statement of fact that was incorrect (albeit accidental I'm sure).

No malice intended :D

I hadn't assumed there was any malice involved in any of the comments. The problem is that given the limitations of brief comments on a forum as a means of communication, I'm still not clear if I have misunderstood others or whether others have missed the point I was trying to make.

I was trying to explain why there is such a discrepancy between the way the media treats the thousands of deaths and injuries on the road and the way they treat gun related incidents.

My point was that most gun related deaths are the result of someone deliberately setting out to kill one or more people. Most vehicle related deaths are not deliberate murder. A very small number are and when they occur, the media seem to give them more coverage than the accidental deaths on the road.

Since I hadn't claimed that vehicle deaths were never deliberate acts, I was allowing for the fact that a small number are. As the examples posted seemed to be the exception rather than the rule and since those examples did get quite a bit of media coverage at the time, I thought that was evidence that accidents don't get the same coverage as murder does.

When I said that your comparison wasn't reasonable, what I meant was that you were comparing an accident with a murder because most, but not all vehicle deaths are accidents and most gun related deaths involving more than one victim are deliberate murder.

Doesn't my repeated use of the word "usually" allow for the examples that have been posted of using vehicles to injure or murder someone? That is what I intended.

We seem to have our wires crossed somehow. I'm sure you are sitting at your keyboard thinking, "How come he can't understand the point I am trying to make?" while I sit here thinking, "What is there about my posts that has him confused?" :p:p:p

Unfortunately that seems to be the nature of a lot of communication on forums. Misunderstandings are common.

I hope this post is accepted as a simple attempt to clarify things and not as an attempt to start an argument. :D

[Lotz-A-Landies]

I don't get your point. An elderly gentlemen is run down by a car and killed, soooo............ that's one person accidently killed. A maniac with a gun can kill maybe 30 people (has happened), when was the last time you heard of somebody in a car running down 30 people in one go.:confused:
The Kempsey bus smash in 1989 killed 35 (the same as Port Arthur, but we haven't banned buses).
Boondall bus crash in 1994 killed 12.
Penshurst crash 2011 killed 6
Salisbury Station crash in 2002 killed 4 (Train car and bus)
Burnley Tunnel crash and fire in 2007 killed 3
2013, nationally there were 6 crashes where 3 or more were killed.
2012, nationally there were 17 crashes where 3 or more were killed (inc 3 x 5 fatalities).
2011, nationally there were 19 crashes where 3 or more were killed (inc the Penshurst crash).
2010, nationally there were 16 crashes where 3 or more were killed (inc a 5 fatalities).
All these are road statistics and we are spending billions on upgrading the safety of the road network etc. But when it comes to firearms the only answer seems to ban firearms. What would have happened if we banned aeroplanes because of a few air crashes? Same with trains, ships and buses?

P.S. in response to VNX205's comment, I specified road crashes because it is sometimes hard to determine if the incident was inadvertant, a lack of maintenance (criminal negligence), fatigue related or deliberate (including drink/drug driving).

[85 county]

Sweet as bro!
NZ sure is odd when compared to us, given we are damn near the same place...apart fom the sheep thing :p
!!

what sheep thing??

[akelly]

Actually, "good-guy-with-a-gun" is not a myth. It worked in this situation. The criminals were stopped by "good-guys-with-guns".

All three of the victims were "good-guys-with-guns". Two were police officers and one was not.

Two were paid to be there, and one was not. He chose to stand up to the criminals. Yes, he died, but he died trying to save others.

Show some god-damn respect.

Ah, no. The "good guy with a gun" was murdered before he could use his gun - that's the myth; that some civilian with a sidearm is going to prevent gun violence.

The cops didn't stop the shooting, the shooters did by one killing the other then killing herself.

So, again, the myth is shown to be a myth.

[Greatsouthernland]

Ah, no. The "good guy with a gun" was murdered before he could use his gun - that's the myth; that some civilian with a sidearm is going to prevent gun violence.

The cops didn't stop the shooting, the shooters did by one killing the other then killing herself.

So, again, the myth is shown to be a myth.

Sorry to pop that bubble AK, saw a vid where a senior citizen with a concealed pistol stopped a violent thief in a Californian casino... I've had a policeman tell me (at a shooting club where we were both members) that 'most' police have unsubstantial experience and practice in firearms use than club members. In saying that, I'm not going any further.....but armed civilians HAVE prevented violence and lived. :angel:

[waz]

Ah, no. The "good guy with a gun" was murdered before he could use his gun - that's the myth; that some civilian with a sidearm is going to prevent gun violence.

The cops didn't stop the shooting, the shooters did by one killing the other then killing herself.

So, again, the myth is shown to be a myth.

WOW. your ignorance shows no bounds.

From the article you posted.


Two teams of cops entered the Walmart from different directions and one of the teams began a running gunbattle with the Millers as the couple retreated deeper into the store. McMahill said that at different times, one of the Millers assumed a tactical shooting position lying on the floor and Jerad Miller had set up a defensive perimeter using stuff from the store. He also used the shotgun to try to blow open doors in the rear of the store to make an escape, but police prevented them from leaving, the officer said.

McMahill said both Millers appear to have been wounded, but the gunfire ended when Amanda Miller shot her husband several times and then shot herself. She was still breathing when police reached her, but died while she was still in the Walmart store.

They were stopped by police. They killed themselves, but there were no more victims because there were surrounded by good-guys-with-guns.

[akelly]

Sorry to pop that bubble AK, saw a vid where a senior citizen with a concealed pistol stopped a violent thief in a Californian casino... I've had a policeman tell me (at a shooting club where we were both members) that 'most' police have unsubstantial experience and practice in firearms use than club members. In saying that, I'm not going any further.....but armed civilians HAVE prevented violence and lived. :angel:

You're not popping any bubble mate.

[akelly]

Personal abuse just gets reported as such. Clean up your act if you want to engage in a conversation, as I'm not interested in bringing myself down you your level.

[isuzurover]

Actually, "good-guy-with-a-gun" is not a myth. It worked in this situation. The criminals were stopped by "good-guys-with-guns".

...

You seem good at twisting the facts to suit your views...


Joseph Robert Wilcox, 31, of Las Vegas, carried a concealed weapon as he shopped. He moved to confront Jerad, but apparently didn’t realize that Amanda was with the gunman. As Wilcox confronted Jerad, Amanda fired into his ribs and he collapsed, dead, police said.

Most of the Concealed Carry / right to bear arms crowd in the US do not consider the cops "good guys". So the only "good guy" they would consider in this situation is Robert Wilcox - who died before he could do anything useful. If he had not been carrying or had stayed still he would likely still be alive.

As pointed out, the 2 offenders committed suicide before they could be stopped. Likely the legally armed and trained law enforcement officers would have stopped them in due course though.

[waz]

You seem good at twisting the facts to suit your views...



Most of the Concealed Carry / right to bear arms crowd in the US do not consider the cops "good guys". So the only "good guy" they would consider in this situation is Robert Wilcox - who died before he could do anything useful. If he had not been carrying or had stayed still he would likely still be alive.

As pointed out, the 2 offenders committed suicide before they could be stopped. Likely the legally armed and trained law enforcement officers would have stopped them in due course though.

Actually, no. Police ARE considered good-guys-with-guns, as are armed security, and other CCW permit holders, but they are not always around when you need them and cannot be relied upon to get there in a timely fashion.

According to the article posted, the criminals were stopped first THEN committed suicide. Nice try twisting the facts to suit your views.

[isuzurover]

Actually, no. Police ARE considered good-guys-with-guns, ...

I dare you to go to pirate or any US ccw/libertarian forum and post that. ;)



... the criminals were stopped first THEN committed suicide.

:D Yes, I am sure a reasonable person's definition of "stopped" in the current context is being armed, behind a barricade and able to still shoot at will.

[akelly]

LaPierre was specifically refering to armed civilian security guards (sworn in as cops) as "good guys with guns". He was specifically not talking about the actual police or law enforcement, in fact that was his whole [deranged] point: that it takes too long for law enforcement to respond, and that more "good guys with guns" need to be everywhere so armed response can happen faster.

There's definitely ignorance in this thread. No doubt about that.

Here't the direct quotes:

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away ... or a minute away?"

"But what if, when Adam Lanza started shooting his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School last Friday, he had been confronted by qualified, armed security?"

"politicians have no business — and no authority — denying us the right, the ability, or the moral imperative to protect ourselves and our loved ones from harm."

"we need to have every single school in America immediately deploy a protection program proven to work — and by that I mean armed security."

"our team of security experts will make this the best program in the world for protecting our children at school"

[waz]

I'm surprised that you think of the police as not good guys. It's pretty obvious I think of them as good guys. You seem to think of them as something else. We're not talking about lapierre or anyone else. I described them as good guys and you think they are not. Do you think the police are good guys or bad guys?

The millers tried to escape but we're stopped by police... Sounds pretty stopped to me.

[85 county]

Well. I have some views of my own

those of us who grew up around firearms, use firearms either for sport or as a tool.

And those of us who have had no or limited exposure to firearms

It is the latter group who make the noise and want to ban everything, there reasoning is based on assumptions and misinformation. There actual knowledge of firearms is solely based on what distorted news is pushed in front of them, and of course a couple of Rambo movies.

The two groups will never agree.

But if you look at Australian gun laws as with most countries who have taken a similar path. The more you ban the more that are killed by. And that’s a fact that can not be argued.

[vnx205]

But if you look at Australian gun laws as with most countries who have taken a similar path. The more you ban the more that are killed by. And that’s a fact that can not be argued.
It appears that the international research journal, Injury Prevention is prepared to argue with you on that point.
The risk of dying by gunshot has halved since Australia destroyed 700,000 privately owned firearms, according to a new study published today in the international research journal, Injury Prevention.
News | The University of Sydney (http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502)

[isuzurover]

...those of us who grew up around firearms, use firearms either for sport or as a tool.

I "grew up around firearms" to use your terminology. I have no issue with people who want to use them as a tool or for sport.

I do however consider most who feel they need a gun for "personal protection" or carry a concealed weapon to be a paranoid nutjob. Note that I know personally several people who fall into this category,, and have spent a lot of time in the US - including many high crime areas.


But if you look at Australian gun laws as with most countries who have taken a similar path. The more you ban the more that are killed by. And that’s a fact that can not be argued.
You may wish to read here:
Hard evidence: does gun control work? (http://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-does-gun-control-work-18374)


These brief case studies demonstrate conclusively that gun control can work, but it needs to be intelligently designed, effectively implemented and responsive to ongoing changes in criminal activity.

[Mick_Marsh]

But if you look at Australian gun laws as with most countries who have taken a similar path. The more you ban the more that are killed by. And that’s a fact that can not be argued.
I would love to see the Australian statistics to back up that claim.
I am astounded at the statistics of gun related deaths in America.

[nealo]

what sheep thing??

There's a story about the Aussie, a Kiwi, a sheep and an electric fence.....but we wont go there:p

This is a great "robust" discussion and I keep going back to the original post and re-reading to tryyyyy and stay on topic...who said shark cull???:wasntme:
In summary this is my opinion
In the USA people embrace firearms as part of their history, and they aren't generally scared of them
Firearm fear generally results from media portraying firearms as scary evil things
Owning several firearms is not unusual


Vehicles and gun deaths may not have been a good comparison as I now see, though I hope it sort of got my point through that firearm related murders may tend to stick in our memories sometimes for longer than murder via a motor vehicle. Call it desensitizing, media brainwashing whatever...just stating my opinion

Now...law changes in the USA, and the resistance against it as per original post. Sure it would be hard and met with alot of resistance, but sometimes these law changes are base on knee jerk reactions and emotive decisions often with no regard for the actual root cause. eg: the clinically depressed psycho shot 4 people. Who is at fault...the inanimate gun?, the psycho?, the bully from school that emotionally destroyed him in early life? doctors for not recognizing his mental state??..we could go one for ages.
Invariably it will be the firearms fault, and again, without finding the ROOT CAUSE lawmakers will take the emotional vote and push for reform. This one of the reasons why I believe there is always so much resistance to law changes.

[Homestar]

But if you look at Australian gun laws as with most countries who have taken a similar path. The more you ban the more that are killed by. And that’s a fact that can not be argued.

So if I read this correctly the more you ban guns, the more people are killed by them? That should mean that the USA should have the lowest rate of gun related deaths in the world, where in reality they have the highest.

[nealo]

I think Afghanistan has that dubious but unfortunate title...on Wikipedia somewhere...if we believe everything we see on the net

[Greatsouthernland]

Why is there so much news of violent crime on Australian news...but very little news of suspects caught?

How can a drug dealer illegally buy a handgun, but only be to be prosecuted with a $2800 fine with no conviction recorded?

Why does a man defending himself in his own home against four armed thugs get charged with manslaughter?

Something is seriously wrong with Australia's justice system.

And for you Akelly -

Each year in the US 2,000,000 crimes are prevented by conceal and carry permit holders. Only 1 in 1000 cases is a firearm discharged.

There's more...

[PAT303]

It appears that the international research journal, Injury Prevention is prepared to argue with you on that point.
The risk of dying by gunshot has halved since Australia destroyed 700,000 privately owned firearms, according to a new study published today in the international research journal, Injury Prevention.
News | The University of Sydney (http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502)

It's notes death by suicide using a firearm in that study so it's a good percentage of the deaths it records,the Government spend how many millions destroying firearms?,maybe they should have spent it on mental health to find out the reason why people take their own life instead of taking away the means of doing it. Pat

[PAT303]

Why is there so much news of violent crime on Australian news...but very little news of suspects caught?

How can a drug dealer illegally buy a handgun, but only be to be prosecuted with a $2800 fine with no conviction recorded?

Why does a man defending himself in his own home against four armed thugs get charged with manslaughter?

Something is seriously wrong with Australia's justice system.

And for you Akelly -

Each year in the US 2,000,000 crimes are prevented by conceal and carry permit holders. Only 1 in 1000 cases is a firearm discharged.

There's more...

You cannot defend yourself using a firearm in Oz,thats the law,if you do your charged.How the drug trade can work so openly and shootings happen so brazenly in Western Sydney is beyond me. Pat

[Greatsouthernland]

So if I read this correctly the more you ban guns, the more people are killed by them? That should mean that the USA should have the lowest rate of gun related deaths in the world, where in reality they have the highest.

Ahh statistics...:D

Gun deaths in America-

Many might be justifiably afraid of conceal and carry laws in Australia, citing statistics that America has 11,000 gun deaths (excluding suicide) each year. This might be true, but they also need to recognise that America has 14 times the population of Australia and that 8,900 of those deaths are gang homicide related.

So to put gun deaths in America into perspective, we will subtract 8,900 from 11,000 and divide by 14. The final total is a far more palatable equivalent of 150, which is not far off the Australian gun homicide rate.

Since 1993, gun deaths in America have halved. This has been widely attributed to conceal and carry laws.



Just another use of statistics to make a point ;)

[Greatsouthernland]

You cannot defend yourself using a firearm in Oz,thats the law,if you do your charged.How the drug trade can work so openly and shootings happen so brazenly in Western Sydney is beyond me. Pat

Yes Pat I know, I never said you could, just that when 4 on one in a home invasion leads to the owner defending himself and being charged, given the situation and huge odds, something isn't quite in favour of the innocent. Castle laws vary greatly state to state...

But here's a curly one for you, POU 7 - other - self defence HAS been approved for certain individuals in SA. So to put it more correctly, you can't use a firearm for self defence UNLESS you have an approved POU (purpose of use) 'other'. I just found this out two weeks ago, but I'm not going to elaborate.

[waz]

The US will find it very hard to change gun laws since the Supreme Court of the USA ruled that the right of law-abiding people to keep and bare arms for lawful purposes should not be infringed.

[Greatsouthernland]

You're not popping any bubble mate.

Phew! That's good. Thought you were getting cranky with our healthy discussion of different opinions with respect to our partisan interest in LR's :D

Maaaaate! :twobeers:

[Greatsouthernland]

There's enough on the following site for an eternity of debate...

Guns in Australia (http://aussieguns.blogspot.com.au)

[Homestar]

Ahh statistics...:D

Gun deaths in America-

Many might be justifiably afraid of conceal and carry laws in Australia, citing statistics that America has 11,000 gun deaths (excluding suicide) each year. This might be true, but they also need to recognise that America has 14 times the population of Australia and that 8,900 of those deaths are gang homicide related.

So to put gun deaths in America into perspective, we will subtract 8,900 from 11,000 and divide by 14. The final total is a far more palatable equivalent of 150, which is not far off the Australian gun homicide rate.

Since 1993, gun deaths in America have halved. This has been widely attributed to conceal and carry laws.



Just another use of statistics to make a point ;)


You said it - Statistics - you've just provided some, then discounted 90% of them because they are just 'gangland related' - they are still gun related deaths right? In that case they stay in the included statistics which still makes the Yanks trigger happy in my book. That puts the USA around 15 times worse (by population) than Australia - based on your statistics. :)

Just so you know - I'm not anti gun at all - I shoot - some of which are bloody big guns...:D. But I think I can do everything I want to in this country with the laws they way they are.:). I can hunt, shoot vermin, or just paper targets. That keeps me happy. We don't need to carry them around with us.

[Greatsouthernland]

You said it - Statistics - you've just provided some, then discounted 90% of them because they are just 'gangland related' - they are still gun related deaths right? In that case they stay in the included statistics which still makes the Yanks trigger happy in my book. That puts the USA around 15 times worse (by population) than Australia - based on your statistics. :)

Just so you know - I'm not anti gun at all - I shoot - some of which are bloody big guns...:D. But I think I can do everything I want to in this country with the laws they way they are.:). I can hunt, shoot vermin, or just paper targets. That keeps me happy. We don't need to carry them around with us.

I agree with you also, just throwing some creative numbers around as the media do. I think we could put all sorts of twists on the numbers to suit a multitude of perspectives. We really don't need anymore meddling with our laws...just more deterrent to those anti socials that flout them :mad:

Similarly I'm content, however will be adding cat C due to the increase in time I volunteer on some farms nearby, too often I've had multiple foxes that are too quick for my bolt cycling ability.

Happy hunting! And paper punching.

[Homestar]

Your bolt cycling ability is on a bit of a tangent, but quietly while no one is listening - I maybe probably wouldn't mind having a semi auto shotgun, but that horse has 'bolted'...:D

[85 county]

It appears that the international research journal, Injury Prevention is prepared to argue with you on that point.
The risk of dying by gunshot has halved since Australia destroyed 700,000 privately owned firearms, according to a new study published today in the international research journal, Injury Prevention.
News | The University of Sydney (http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502)

this is the problem with such published reports. The results are not clear, even the report its self uses the word "Sagest"

While the report uses the number of a percentage of a population for Homicide and suicide. But it not elaborating the details of homicide. IE a breakdown of criminal murder, firearms used in other crime such as robberies etc that result in death. or accidental shooting resulting in death.

It would also be interesting to compare shootings not resulting in death, something this report has not touched

With the suicide, was the total number of suicides reduced, or did it remain the same but a different method was used? if there was a drop in total how much of that drop could be attributed to the lack of availability of a firearm?

There are other factors to take into account, changes in the storage of firearms, did this just make the available unavailable? Or even a social change, lots of news so gun owners take a bit more responsibility and lock up there firearms more carefully?

in short this report is rubbish because it is lacking in detail. Well produced for the gullible.

[85 county]

I "grew up around firearms" to use your terminology. I have no issue with people who want to use them as a tool or for sport.

I do however consider most who feel they need a gun for "personal protection" or carry a concealed weapon to be a paranoid nutjob. Note that I know personally several people who fall into this category,, and have spent a lot of time in the US - including many high crime areas.


You may wish to read here:
Hard evidence: does gun control work? (http://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-does-gun-control-work-18374)


waste of time comparing Australia to America. America gun culture is from it past, a gun in the USA is like an acurba hat in Australia

but what you have posted to, hard evidence it is not, its just rubbish, read and think.

[85 county]

I would love to see the Australian statistics to back up that claim.
I am astounded at the statistics of gun related deaths in America.

easy, ill dig them up.

the point is, gun deaths or gun crime. gun deaths are down, gun crime is up

[85 county]

You cannot defend yourself using a firearm in Oz,thats the law,if you do your charged.How the drug trade can work so openly and shootings happen so brazenly in Western Sydney is beyond me. Pat

you can use a firearm to defend your self in australia. there is no law that stats you can not!!

how ever there is equal force.

and there is firearm storage laws, IE how can you be scared for your life if you have time to unlock and arm a rife and then shoot some one.

selfdefence is not justfication to get a firearm

[Mick_Marsh]

Ahh statistics...:D

Gun deaths in America-

Many might be justifiably afraid of conceal and carry laws in Australia, citing statistics that America has 11,000 gun deaths (excluding suicide) each year. This might be true, but they also need to recognise that America has 14 times the population of Australia and that 8,900 of those deaths are gang homicide related.

So to put gun deaths in America into perspective, we will subtract 8,900 from 11,000 and divide by 14. The final total is a far more palatable equivalent of 150, which is not far off the Australian gun homicide rate.

Since 1993, gun deaths in America have halved. This has been widely attributed to conceal and carry laws.



Just another use of statistics to make a point ;)
Well, when you bring semantics into play, we actually find there are very few deaths by gun in Australia. I challenge all to find me one.
What actually causes these deaths is the projectile.

[85 county]

So if I read this correctly the more you ban guns, the more people are killed by them? That should mean that the USA should have the lowest rate of gun related deaths in the world, where in reality they have the highest.

wrong you have read my post incorectly, as i suspect you have intended to do. read it again.

i did make an error in my post. but its not what you are going on about

[85 county]

on topic, anyone got the stats on legal firearms and crime vers illegal firearms and crime

[Greatsouthernland]

Well, when you bring semantics into play, we actually find there are very few deaths by gun in Australia. I challenge all to find me one.
What actually causes these deaths is the projectile.

Well done lateral thinker :D taken to its logical conclusion, massive haemorrhaging/hydrostatic shock is the real culprit...:wasntme:

[isuzurover]

But if you look at Australian gun laws as with most countries who have taken a similar path. The more you ban the more that are killed by. And that’s a fact that can not be argued.


...]but what you have posted to, hard evidence it is not, its just rubbish, read and think.

On the contrary - it seems you are the one who cannot understand and needs to think.

I have bolded your quote which you now seem to want to weasel around.

Australian firearm related deaths since port arthur
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/06/1025.jpg
http://www.abc.net.au/news/linkableblob/4905120/data/chart3a-deaths-resulting-from-firearms-data.jpg

Now that the extensive data from all around the world is proving you wrong, you seem to want to change your quote to somehow refer to gun crime:

Australian data:
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/06/1026.jpg
http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi2/tandi328-1.gif

Whichever way you look at it, both gun deaths AND gun crime have decreased since the buyback scheme.
And that’s a fact that can not be argued.



And I say to all the unfounded twaddle you have posted

... its just rubbish, read and think.

[Greatsouthernland]

?... has 'bolted'...:D

Oooh :o I just got that...:oops2:

Time to call it a day for my foggy brain :zzz: touché bacicat.

[Tote]

On the contrary - it seems you are the one who cannot understand and needs to think.

I have bolded your quote which you now seem to want to weasel around.

Australian firearm related deaths since port arthur
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/06/1025.jpg
http://www.abc.net.au/news/linkableblob/4905120/data/chart3a-deaths-resulting-from-firearms-data.jpg

Now that the extensive data from all around the world is proving you wrong, you seem to want to change your quote to somehow refer to gun crime:

Australian data:
http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi2/tandi328-1.gif
http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi2/tandi328-1.gif

Whichever way you look at it, both gun deaths AND gun crime have decreased since the buyback scheme.

There's a couple of questions I would pose on the figures above:

1. The deaths by firearm graph points to a decline in deaths, is there a similar graph that does not include suicide. As I mentioned in an earlier post it is well established that suicide deaths have fallen as a result of the removal of guns from people who may pose a threat to others or themselves.

2. The other graph only refers to armed robberies. The firearm component of the robberies pretty much mirrors the general decline in crime from 2001. If the gun buyback scheme had had the claimed impact then i would have expected the armed robbery with a firearm line to diverge from the general trend after 1996, instead it meanders along at a similar level perhaps being driven by other factors (economy, drug availability etc ). Also that graph only takes into account robberies, not other crimes committed using firearms.

Some better statistics would be interesting .

Regards,
Tote

[PAT303]

you can use a firearm to defend your self in australia. there is no law that stats you can not!!

how ever there is equal force.

and there is firearm storage laws, IE how can you be scared for your life if you have time to unlock and arm a rife and then shoot some one.

selfdefence is not justfication to get a firearm

No you can't,if someone comes into your house with a firearm and you use a firearm to defend yourself you will be charged under unsecured firearms regulation,also unsafe storage of both firearms and ammunition. Pat

[PAT303]

You said it - Statistics - you've just provided some, then discounted 90% of them because they are just 'gangland related' - they are still gun related deaths right? In that case they stay in the included statistics which still makes the Yanks trigger happy in my book. That puts the USA around 15 times worse (by population) than Australia - based on your statistics. :)

Just so you know - I'm not anti gun at all - I shoot - some of which are bloody big guns...:D. But I think I can do everything I want to in this country with the laws they way they are.:). I can hunt, shoot vermin, or just paper targets. That keeps me happy. We don't need to carry them around with us.

Trouble is what are we basing all this on,illegal firearms or legal?. Pat

[PAT303]

Just remember also there is now more firearms in Australia than pre PA. Pat

[Homestar]

Trouble is what are we basing all this on,illegal firearms or legal?. Pat

I would imagine these stats are based on all firearm related deaths, legal and illegal firearms.

[Greatsouthernland]

2. The other graph only refers to armed robberies. The firearm component of the robberies pretty much mirrors the general decline in crime from 2001. If the gun buyback scheme had had the claimed impact then i would have expected the armed robbery with a firearm line to diverge from the general trend after 1996, instead it meanders along at a similar level perhaps being driven by other factors (economy, drug availability etc ).


Only the law abiding citizens handed in the guns that were to be bought back and made illegal.

The criminals kept theirs, already illegally possessed anyway, nothing changed because criminals don't really follow the law. Only the media believed the buy back would reduce gun crime...only an idiot believed criminals would take their already illegal guns to a police station for cash :( oh greetings mr robber thanks for the sawn off pumpy, here's $1,000 now run along...yeh right.:nazilock:

Well that's what I reckon, maybe I'm overly cynical, maybe just cynical, dunno.
.

[isuzurover]

...
1. The deaths by firearm graph points to a decline in deaths, is there a similar graph that does not include suicide. As I mentioned in an earlier post it is well established that suicide deaths have fallen as a result of the removal of guns from people who may pose a threat to others or themselves.

http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi2/tandi269-1.gif
http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi2/tandi269-1.gif

Graph that separates homicides and suicides. Note the homicides show a similar decrease, however look flatter because of the scale on the y-axis.



2. The other graph only refers to armed robberies. The firearm component of the robberies pretty much mirrors the general decline in crime from 2001. If the gun buyback scheme had had the claimed impact then i would have expected the armed robbery with a firearm line to diverge from the general trend after 1996, instead it meanders along at a similar level perhaps being driven by other factors (economy, drug availability etc ). Also that graph only takes into account robberies, not other crimes committed using firearms.


Agreed - however the claim was that gun controls INCREASE (gun) crime. This was clearly not the case in Australia with the gun buyback scheme. And it is not like you need a semi-auto or a 12g to commit a robbery or suicide.



Some better statistics would be interesting .


Your turn then - the ABS database is extensive and for all to use...

If people want to argue that rates were on the decline anyway, and the buyback scheme did SFA, then fine. However the argument that the buyback scheme increased deaths or crime is just nonsense.
Noboby I know lost ALL their guns because of the buyback scheme. So it is not like anyone went from being a gun owner to not.

[bee utey]

Only the law abiding citizens handed in the guns that were to be bought back and made illegal.

The criminals kept theirs, already illegally possessed anyway, nothing changed because criminals don't really follow the law. Only the media believed the buy back would reduce gun crime...only an idiot believed criminals would take their already illegal guns to a police station for cash :( oh greetings mr robber thanks for the sawn off pumpy, here's $1,000 now run along...yeh right.:nazilock:

Well that's what I reckon, maybe I'm overly cynical, maybe just cynical, dunno.
.
I imagine that a gun does not remain in the hands of one criminal forever, to be handed down to dutiful sons and daughters etc like a family heirloom. They get lost, broken, stolen, collected in police raids etc. Where do replacement guns come from? Imports and stolen legally owned guns. Well, having fewer guns in private hands potentially make guns scarcer in the criminal world, quelle surprise.

I'll just leave this item here, on the subject of looney Yanks blatantly carrying assault weapons around in public...

Real Time with Bill Maher: New Rules - Open Carry - YouTube

[Tote]

[snip
Noboby I know lost ALL their guns because of the buyback scheme. So it is not like anyone went from being a gun owner to not.

Actually, I did. A stirling pump action shottie and a .22 semi auto both went with the new gun laws. I did get more than I paid and my circumstances had changed so I didn't need them ( living in town and not hunting ) So from that perspective it could be argued that the gun buyback achieved it's aim of removing guns from the community that were not being used. What did make me sad though was seeing some of the other weapons being handed in such as high end shotguns that were simply destroyed.

Regards,
Tote

[korg20000bc]

I'll just leave this item here, on the subject of looney Yanks blatantly carrying assault weapons around in public...


...Just lawfully living their lives out in a country that allows one to do this. Like I posted earlier- US citizens are constitutionally empowered to bear arms as a defence against their own government.

[bee utey]

...Just lawfully living their lives out in a country that allows one to do this. Like I posted earlier- US citizens are constitutionally empowered to bear arms as a defence against their own government.
Of course it's legal! Just you'll see that a significant fraction of the US public thinks it's a bad idea them wandering around scaring the rest with their blatant exhibitionism. You can have compassion for the feelings of your fellow citizen... or you can be a callous "up yours" redneck and get more people offside.

[korg20000bc]

Of course it's legal! Just you'll see that a significant fraction of the US public thinks it's a bad idea them wandering around scaring the rest with their blatant exhibitionism. You can have compassion for the feelings of your fellow citizen... or you can be a callous "up yours" redneck and get more people offside.

Surely they are not the only options.
I think you'll also find that a hugely more significant fraction of the population don't have a problem with it and applaud fellow citizens exercising their constitutional rights.

I also don't see what "feelings"has to do with it nor your logic. If you live your life according to the feelings of other people and not doing anything that scares or offends anyone else, it'd be a pretty sad existence. I may feel that followers of a certain religion are dangerous or can quickly become violent and that makes me feel uncertain and scared. Their freedom to be a part of this religion is protected in law. There's a fraction of the population who think it's a bad idea for them to go around scaring the rest with their blatant exhibitionism. They should have compassion for the feelings of their fellow citizens... or they can callously give us an "up yours" and get more people offside.

It doesn't seem to work for me...

[Ausfree]

You are showing not only your ignorance but a complete lack of knowledge saying this,firearms designed to kill people are totally different to firearms designed to hunt or for target competition,as is the type of ammunition they fire and the way both types of firearms are used. Pat

Please keep your comments ON the subject and do not insult me. It's these types of comments that cause Threads to spiral out of control.:mad:

ps I do have some military background. I have been instructed and I was also an instructor on the safe handling of weapons.

[Ausfree]

The Kempsey bus smash in 1989 killed 35 (the same as Port Arthur, but we haven't banned buses).
Boondall bus crash in 1994 killed 12.
Penshurst crash 2011 killed 6
Salisbury Station crash in 2002 killed 4 (Train car and bus)
Burnley Tunnel crash and fire in 2007 killed 3
2013, nationally there were 6 crashes where 3 or more were killed.
2012, nationally there were 17 crashes where 3 or more were killed (inc 3 x 5 fatalities).
2011, nationally there were 19 crashes where 3 or more were killed (inc the Penshurst crash).
2010, nationally there were 16 crashes where 3 or more were killed (inc a 5 fatalities).
All these are road statistics and we are spending billions on upgrading the safety of the road network etc. But when it comes to firearms the only answer seems to ban firearms. What would have happened if we banned aeroplanes because of a few air crashes? Same with trains, ships and buses?

P.S. in response to VNX205's comment, I specified road crashes because it is sometimes hard to determine if the incident was inadvertant, a lack of maintenance (criminal negligence), fatigue related or deliberate (including drink/drug driving).
Again, I can't see your point. Are you saying the driver of the bus involved in the Kempsey bus crash was a lunatic who deliberately set out to kill 35 people? Those people were on the bus as passengers that were involved in an accident. Sure, charges were laid, but from what I can see no body set out to deliberately murder 35 people in that incident. The incident at Port Arthur is a separate issue, Bryant set out to murder people and he sure didn't do it with a bus. It's like trying to compare apples with oranges.

[BMKal]

It's like trying to compare apples with oranges.

Nah .................... apples and oranges do have some similarities.

I'd think a better description would be trying to compare apples with Volkswagens. :D

[Greatsouthernland]

I imagine that a gun does not remain in the hands of one criminal forever, to be handed down to dutiful sons and daughters etc like a family heirloom. They get lost, broken, stolen, collected in police raids etc. Where do replacement guns come from? Imports and stolen legally owned guns. Well, having fewer guns in private hands potentially make guns scarcer in the criminal world, quelle surprise.

I'll just leave this item here, on the subject of looney Yanks blatantly carrying assault weapons around in public...

Real Time with Bill Maher: New Rules - Open Carry - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTpCUAK4ypA)

Don't see the relevance of the vid to your point, but that's fine and just one side.

Perhaps you know more than most about what crims do with their tools, not going to disagree that they may hand them down or lose them...

You do know that since 96 reforms, all privately owned (legal) firearms must be stored in a bolted down (to the concrete slab or building) secure safe?

Do you know that it seems silly to limit people owning something just so that no one will steal it :confused: as you suggested :(

Taking that approach, do we limit ownership of cars so they are not stolen?

Would you think that if someone stole your bike, you would call for bike ownership to be reduced as it prevents criminals from stealing them :o

Let's stop locking our houses, then there will be no more 'forced' entries.

Beauty, you can choose not to like something, but to be opposed to people legally having something for such a lame reason such as it may be stolen, is ignoring the real issue - the thief is a criminal, not the law abiding owner of whatever it is that was stolen.

Can we punish the thief/criminal and not the victim please? If that's OK with you?

.

[Homestar]

You are showing not only your ignorance but a complete lack of knowledge saying this,firearms designed to kill people are totally different to firearms designed to hunt or for target competition,as is the type of ammunition they fire and the way both types of firearms are used. Pat

Not sure I totally agree with that. I use a snipers rifle - a type that is currently used as the primary or secondary weapon for snipers in both the Australian armed forces and Police special forces - for target competition. The main reason is that is is bloody acurate at long range (and is a **** hot gun to use. :) ). It also gets used for hunting from time to time. It wasn't designed for hunting or target practice - it was desgined to kill. Doesn't mean it has to be used like that though. It is completely legal to own in this country.

[korg20000bc]

Not sure I totally agree with that. I use a snipers rifle - a type that is currently used as the primary or secondary weapon for snipers in both the Australian armed forces and Police special forces - for target competition. The main reason is that is is bloody acurate at long range (and is a **** hot gun to use. :) ). It also gets used for hunting from time to time. It wasn't designed for hunting or target practice - it was desgined to kill. Doesn't mean it has to be used like that though. It is completely legal to own in this country.

Also, no-one would use military ammunition for really trying to kill someone or for hunting. Military ammunition is designed to not expand, maim rather than kill. Hunting ammunition is made to kill much more certainly and banned for use on human targets by all signatories of the Hague Convention (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_%281899_and_1907%29). - Shotguns were thought to be in breach of the law too.

[Homestar]

Agreed. Ammo is different.

[nealo]

..just ask all the roo's taken over the years with ex-mil 303 ammo!!! they might disagree!!! But I see your point...basically solid projy's, no hollow points etc. But again...these are not designed to kill...but they do a bloody good job of it

A previous poster mentioned citizens in the US carrying military firearms in public in the open. My grandfather used to ride to school with his.22, people would go hunting travelling on trams and trains with their firearms, cadets would ride across town on push bikes with their 303's fitted with morris tubes. Has public perception changed that much...or were there less nutters back then?

[waz]

In the mid-90's I used to ride my motorbike from Toowoomba to properties between Crow's Nest, Cooyar, and Blackbutt with my Mini-14 across my back. Never even got a sideways glance.

In every US state that introduced concealed carry laws, the WORST case scenario was the violent crime did not increase. This was even admitted by the rabid anti-gun researchers Ian Ayers and John Donohue.

[Tote]

In the mid-90's I used to ride my motorbike from Toowoomba to properties between Crow's Nest, Cooyar, and Blackbutt with my Mini-14 across my back. Never even got a sideways glance.

In every US state that introduced concealed carry laws, the WORST case scenario was the violent crime did not increase. This was even admitted by the rabid anti-gun researchers Ian Ayers and John Donohue.

Yep, I reckon public perception has changed. Both my 107 and my XT ute have homemade rifle mounts behind the seats, they were there when I bought both vehicles as a convenient place to carry a tool in the bush. Nowadays people would phone 000 if you dared to drive into town with a rifle in the vehicle in plain sight.
Regards,
Tote

[BMKal]

Yep, I reckon public perception has changed. Both my 107 and my XT ute have homemade rifle mounts behind the seats, they were there when I bought both vehicles as a convenient place to carry a tool in the bush. Nowadays people would phone 000 if you dared to drive into town with a rifle in the vehicle in plain sight.
Regards,
Tote

I was having a good look at this the other day.

I imagine that the 303 and the machette alongside the transmission tunnel were only there for "historic" value though. :D

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/06/985.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/06/986.jpg

[PAT303]

Please keep your comments ON the subject and do not insult me. It's these types of comments that cause Threads to spiral out of control.:mad:

ps I do have some military background. I have been instructed and I was also an instructor on the safe handling of weapons.

Deal,as long as you don't come on here spuiking crap like guns are designed for one purpose and thats for killing people.OK. Pat

[isuzurover]

Real Time with Bill Maher: New Rules - Open Carry - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTpCUAK4ypA)

Thanks that was hilarious.

I loved the line about encountering armed resistance when buying a toilet seat in Home Depot.


...

A previous poster mentioned citizens in the US carrying military firearms in public in the open. My grandfather used to ride to school with his.22, people would go hunting travelling on trams and trains with their firearms, cadets would ride across town on push bikes with their 303's fitted with morris tubes. Has public perception changed that much...or were there less nutters back then?

Yes but that is quite different. They were carrying them because they needed them, not to make a fashion statement or political point as in the video above. That is what has changed IMHO.

If you see a pro shooter driving around with a rifle in his car (as I did recently) I doubt most would bat an eyelid.

But back to your example, I doubt there is anywhere you could travel on a tram these days and legally use a firearm?

[PAT303]

Not sure I totally agree with that. I use a snipers rifle - a type that is currently used as the primary or secondary weapon for snipers in both the Australian armed forces and Police special forces - for target competition. The main reason is that is is bloody acurate at long range (and is a **** hot gun to use. :) ). It also gets used for hunting from time to time. It wasn't designed for hunting or target practice - it was desgined to kill. Doesn't mean it has to be used like that though. It is completely legal to own in this country.

Snipers rifle,lets use scary words like Sniper rifle,sniper fire,you should work on today tonight.Let me guess,you have a Model 700 Remmy,sorry mate it an't no sniper rifle and you aren't a sniper.The 700 was designed as a hunting rifle 60 years ago,just because the Police use it doesn't mean it's a sniper rifle. Pat

[Greatsouthernland]

?..

But back to your example, I doubt there is anywhere you could travel on a tram these days and legally use a firearm?

Just one off the top of my head, you could get onto the tram from any stop before Adelaide city on your way to the indoor range in the city centre licensed for all calibres up to .50 cal.

I'm sure I could come up with another....

[Homestar]

Snipers rifle,lets use scary words like Sniper rifle,sniper fire,you should work on today tonight.Let me guess,you have a Model 700 Remmy,sorry mate it an't no sniper rifle and you aren't a sniper.The 700 was designed as a hunting rifle 60 years ago,just because the Police use it doesn't mean it's a sniper rifle. Pat

Not that it matters but no. Sig sauer blaser 338 lapua. Currently used as a primary sniper rifle for Australian Military and some Police special ops - it just is, I'm not making that up.

The 338 Lapua round was specifically designed for military use - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.338_Lapua_Magnum

I'm not throwing the word around - that's what it was designed for. I just used one to shoot a bit of paper from a long way away...:). It has a straight pull action and is known for centring the round very accurately so is perfect as a target rifle.

Although recently I've used it's smaller brother - a 308 blaser - again, very accurate, great target rifle.

Hmm, not sure why the pic is on its side though.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

[isuzurover]

...Sig sauer blaser 338 lapua...

Very nice...

[Homestar]

Very nice...

It was.... I have an interesting story about it, but I can't post it on a public forum.

That's why I use the 308 now...

[123rover50]

I was having a good look at this the other day.

I imagine that the 303 and the machette alongside the transmission tunnel were only there for "historic" value though. :D

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/06/985.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/06/986.jpg


Interesting.
Looks like the bolt is in it. "Cocked and locked"

[123rover50]

Not that it matters but no. Sig sauer blaser 338 lapua. Currently used as a primary sniper rifle for Australian Military and some Police special ops - it just is, I'm not making that up.

The 338 Lapua round was specifically designed for military use - .338 Lapua Magnum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.338_Lapua_Magnum)

I'm not throwing the word around - that's what it was designed for. I just used one to shoot a bit of paper from a long way away...:). It has a straight pull action and is known for centring the round very accurately so is perfect as a target rifle.

Although recently I've used it's smaller brother - a 308 blaser - again, very accurate, great target rifle.

Hmm, not sure why the pic is on its side though.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

Love it:D
Unfortunately all the ranges we can shoot on are limited to 8mm max.
So the .338 is out for competition use:(
What range do you shoot on , or is it private property?

[korg20000bc]

Not that it matters but no. Sig sauer blaser 338 lapua. Currently used as a primary sniper rifle for Australian Military and some Police special ops - it just is, I'm not making that up.

The 338 Lapua round was specifically designed for military use - .338 Lapua Magnum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.338_Lapua_Magnum)

I'm not throwing the word around - that's what it was designed for. I just used one to shoot a bit of paper from a long way away...:). It has a straight pull action and is known for centring the round very accurately so is perfect as a target rifle.

Although recently I've used it's smaller brother - a 308 blaser - again, very accurate, great target rifle.

Hmm, not sure why the pic is on its side though.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/
Amazing precision instrument!
PAT303, it was a pretty bizarre comment.

[Greatsouthernland]

Not that it matters but no. Sig sauer blaser 338 lapua. Currently used as a primary sniper rifle for Australian Military and some Police special ops - it just is, I'm not making that up.

The 338 Lapua round was specifically designed for military use - .338 Lapua Magnum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.338_Lapua_Magnum)

I'm not throwing the word around - that's what it was designed for. I just used one to shoot a bit of paper from a long way away...:). It has a straight pull action and is known for centring the round very accurately so is perfect as a target rifle.

Although recently I've used it's smaller brother - a 308 blaser - again, very accurate, great target rifle.

Hmm, not sure why the pic is on its side though.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

Nice Tool!

:( makes my 300winmag look like a pea shooter......note the maccas ration pack standard issue

[PAT303]

Not that it matters but no. Sig sauer blaser 338 lapua. Currently used as a primary sniper rifle for Australian Military and some Police special ops - it just is, I'm not making that up.

The 338 Lapua round was specifically designed for military use - .338 Lapua Magnum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.338_Lapua_Magnum)

I'm not throwing the word around - that's what it was designed for. I just used one to shoot a bit of paper from a long way away...:). It has a straight pull action and is known for centring the round very accurately so is perfect as a target rifle.

Although recently I've used it's smaller brother - a 308 blaser - again, very accurate, great target rifle.

Hmm, not sure why the pic is on its side though.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

Thanks for that,for a moment I thought you were another mall Ninja.At least you have very good taste. Pat

[PAT303]

Amazing precision instrument!
PAT303, it was a pretty bizarre comment.

Not really,you should meet some of the people out their.Have you ever seen the movie shooter?,I have had two different people quote me information straight from that movie,the movie is a work of fiction. Pat

[korg20000bc]

Not really,you should meet some of the people out their.Have you ever seen the movie shooter?,I have had two different people quote me information straight from that movie,the movie is a work of fiction. Pat
Yes, and nothing to do with bacicat's comment.
No, I haven't seen the movie shooter. Who's he?
:)

[d@rk51d3]

No, I haven't seen the movie shooter. Who's he?
:)

I'm guessing a staple of the wannabe "mall ninja".:D

[Homestar]

Love it:D
Unfortunately all the ranges we can shoot on are limited to 8mm max.
So the .338 is out for competition use:(
What range do you shoot on , or is it private property?

Don't shoot comp, just for fun with some mates. We shoot up at the Little River Range, and on a mates 2000 acres up near Bendigo. no limit to size.:)


Nice Tool!

:( makes my 300winmag look like a pea shooter......note the maccas ration pack standard issue

If you knew me you would know a Maccas bag is never far away...:D


Thanks for that,for a moment I thought you were another mall Ninja.At least you have very good taste. Pat

Thanks.:)

[korg20000bc]

Interesting timing:
Obama Praises Australia's Gun Confiscation | National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/380033/obama-praises-australias-gun-confiscation-charles-c-w-cooke)

[85 county]

No you can't,if someone comes into your house with a firearm and you use a firearm to defend yourself you will be charged under unsecured firearms regulation,also unsafe storage of both firearms and ammunition. Pat

as i posted, storage. and you are correct you will be charged under unsecured firearms regulation,also unsafe storage of both firearms and ammunition.

but you will not be charged for shooting some one

[mox]

If someone likely to be violent comes into your house and you use a firearm to defend yourself, I doubt the regulations regarding unsafe storage of firearm and ammunition could necessarily be implemented. They certainly would if you go away and leave them unsecured though. However, most likely not while you are present and have them under your effective control. I had firearm and ammo out and ready for use once in case of emergency. A bloke I know who was very angry about something was around. His thinking was badly warped due to methamphetamines and /or lack of prescribed medication to reduce his tendency to becoming aggro due to past amphetamine use. Idea if shooting unavoidable is something that hits hard in non lethal way to put attacker temporarily out of action but not kill. Inflicting minor injuries can be dangerous by making them more angry.

[85 county]

If someone likely to be violent comes into your house and you use a firearm to defend yourself, I doubt the regulations regarding unsafe storage of firearm and ammunition could necessarily be implemented. They certainly would if you go away and leave them unsecured though. However, most likely not while you are present and have them under your effective control. I had firearm and ammo out and ready for use once in case of emergency. A bloke I know who was very angry about something was around. His thinking was badly warped due to methamphetamines and /or lack of prescribed medication to reduce his tendency to becoming aggro due to past amphetamine use. Idea if shooting unavoidable is something that hits hard in non lethal way to put attacker temporarily out of action but not kill. Inflicting minor injuries can be dangerous by making them more angry.

then you are going to jail. "I had firearm and ammo out and ready for use once in case of emergency" for that. non legal use. or intent.

But you actually had your firearm out for cleaning since you had not used it for some time and you were concerned about rust. And dusty ammo. You had no idea that some nuttier was on there way to make problems. now did you. NB deleting sms messages to and from said nuttier will not help.

Having said that, the cops show up see a firearm, and you will be processed, your firearms will be uplifted you will be charged. Simply because the cops have no say in the matter. IE they can not decide or they lose there own jobs. It’s for a judge to decide. You need to convince him and him alone.

[460cixy]

Not that it matters but no. Sig sauer blaser 338 lapua. Currently used as a primary sniper rifle for Australian Military and some Police special ops - it just is, I'm not making that up.

The 338 Lapua round was specifically designed for military use - .338 Lapua Magnum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.338_Lapua_Magnum)

I'm not throwing the word around - that's what it was designed for. I just used one to shoot a bit of paper from a long way away...:). It has a straight pull action and is known for centring the round very accurately so is perfect as a target rifle.

Although recently I've used it's smaller brother - a 308 blaser - again, very accurate, great target rifle.

Hmm, not sure why the pic is on its side though.

http://www.aulro.com/afvb/attachment.php?attachmentid=78782&d=1402468373


Is that a model 44 next to it? I'd take the 44 over a blaser any day mate has one and I'm just not impressed by it and my 44 shoots much tighter groups

[Homestar]

Is that a model 44 next to it? I'd take the 44 over a blaser any day mate has one and I'm just not impressed by it and my 44 shoots much tighter groups

Can't remember what that other one is - I'm not actually a gun guru by any means - I just know a bit about the guns i shoot regularly - which is the blaser and an older Ruger 308. my mate had just had the muzzle brake fitted the day before we went out that day. I only missed one bull at 600 yards during the comp (a friendly - nothing serious) and he missed 3. Maybe I'm just a better shot than him...;). (I'm not actually - he was shooting wrong handed due to a broken collar bone - he did a bloody good job considering that:))

[disco man]

Today's school yard shooting just fills me with sadness at what is happening in the states and just makes me feel lucky that we in Australia don't have this sort of tragedy(not to say that it won't ever happen).

The answers to this thread have been very informative and thoughtful. The responsible gun owners among you have made a lot of sense.I would just like to say i am a pig hunter and have been for a long time but i use a dog and knife but a lot of blokes i know are pro roo hunters and i have been on a couple trips with them and i am not anti-gun in any way.

But after reading all the threads in this post there is not a simple fix to this problem and not to start a fight with anyone but there is a serious gun problem in the states that needs to be solved before anymore innocent people ane killed.

But as others have posted after so many years of firearms freedom the likely hood of changes to gun laws is not likely to happen anytime soon.But if anyone of you was Obama what would you change to stop the killings?

[Ausfree]

Deal,as long as you don't come on here spuiking crap like guns are designed for one purpose and thats for killing people.OK. Pat
I guess you are reading into my posts something that was never said. I said guns are designed to kill .......full stop. Where did the "people" come into it??? Again you are being insulting!!!!

[korg20000bc]

But if anyone of you was Obama what would you change to stop the killings?

Reduce the amount of psychotropic drugs perscribed to the population.
Michael Moore - Reveals the real cause of Columbine. - YouTube

[bee utey]

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/06/978.jpg

Someone Out There Is Wrong • 6-11-2014 • The Far Left Side • Progressive Comics Monday, Wednesday and Friday! (http://www.farleftside.com/2014/6-11-14-someone-is-wrong.html)


I Killed 'Em!

http://www.farleftside.com/misc/2014-misc/bang-gun.jpg "Welcome to Open Carry night at the Komedy Korner, and to start things off tonight is our very own local funny man, that wacky progressive himself, Karl Vanderchuck!"

"Thanks, Bob! Hello everyone! Boy, what a great audience! Hey, does anyone know what time is it when the legal owner of an assault rifle kills half of the children in a grade school?

It's time to reload! Hah!

And what do you give the armed revolutionary who has everything?

A self-inflicted headshot! Yeah, I know. Awkward.

Do you know how you really make a gun aficionado's eyes light up?

You mount the tactical laser backwards! Yeah! That guy got it!

Why did the gun owner bring an 18-shot magazine to the movies?

Because the sign said "Under 17 not admitted". Under 17.... y'see... never mind.

Why do supporters of the Second Amendment hate golf?

Because you can only shoot 18.

What do Constitutionally-protected gun owners call a movie theatre?

A target audience! Hah!

Why do licensed gun owners always carry a gun in the car?

So they can park in the handicap zone! Get it? No? Anyone? Ooo-kay.

Hey! How do you define the word 'eternity'?

That's four stand-your-grounders at a four-way intersection waiting for the others to make the first move. That could really take a while. <cough>

Does anyone here know why hunters still hunt?

It's because something out there is still alive.

<chirp-chirp-chirp>

Do you know what the NRA thinks about 36,000 Americans dying each year from gunshots?

They think it's a good start!

Okay, before I go, let me ask, what do you call four Open Carry members riding in a Volkswagen?

Farfromthinken.

Heyyy, thank you! I'll be here all week!"

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!

Thump.

"............. tip.... your.....waitresss.........ugh."

"Karl Vanderchuck, everyone! Let's give him a big hand.... and a proper burial! Hah! Next up, Wanda Vestibule and her magic accordion!"

--------------

[THE BOOGER]

Heard a guy on the radio tonight say why doesn't the government (US) just change the constitution well most constitutions in stable countries are made deliberately hard to change like here ,most attempts to change it fail. We don't have the same history as the US does even thought we are very similar in our society the constitution in the US specifically says they have to right to bears arms as a defence against oppression(the supreme court takes that to mean oppressive govt) so any attempt by the govt to change things is viewed immediately as suspicious by a large part of the population. I don't think any attempt by the US Federal govt to limits the right to bears arms will succeed it will have to come from the population and that will not be happening anytime soon even with the school and mall shootings.
Here in Australia we have different problems we do not have large numbers of guns stolen from legitimate shooters and legal shooters make up a very small proportion of gun crime. Of the licenced shooters who go on to commit crimes many are already known to police or have had mental health issues in the past but we do not have blanket bans on ill people or just because some one is known to police. On the other hand we have now got more guns than pre Port Arthur but less gun crime so the number of guns vers gun crime is not so relevant, we must be doing something right:)

PS: I am a lic shooter and have both hand guns and long rifles and shoot very dangerous paper animals:p

[Disco Muppet]

Not really,you should meet some of the people out their.Have you ever seen the movie shooter?,I have had two different people quote me information straight from that movie,the movie is a work of fiction. Pat

Hmmm cold bore headshots at a grand +, do ya think? :D

Should people be allowed to own guns? Yes.
Are guns designed, perhaps in some cases as the tool of a farmer or pest controller, to kill? Yes.
Just because you're using it to remove feral animals doesn't change the fact, you're doing it by killing them :) Don't see many people using guns to fix leaky pipes or tighten loose bolts.
The problem with the US is, IMHO, threefold.
1. Access. Walking into a home depot store and buying a gun. Yes, that's not everywhere, but I'd hazard a guess (a guess, nothing more, please correct me if I'm wrong) that even the toughest gun legislation in America is considerably looser than in Australia. It took my father and I about 3 months to get permission to buy our .223 WSSM. How's that for a cooling off period? :D

2. Type of firearm available. Yes, it's in the constitution to be bear arms, and it probably says something about matching the military power. But do you REALLY need a Tacticool M4 for prowling around shooting prairie dogs? Or is your dick even smaller than most people think?

3. Culture. Yes, it's part of their rights. And they should be able to exercise their rights. But it's the sort of rabid defense of gun-culture that's a problem. You DARE suggest that maybe it's not such a good idea to allow the people to have access to fully automatic weapons with this that and the other hanging off it, or say that there's a difference between the right to bear arms and the right to go deer hunting with an uzi and you're branded one of them hippy liberal communist terrorist supporting un-patriotic sonsabitches.

FWIW I think our own gun buyback was stupid and the wrong thing to do, but at the same time I don't really think we really need the right to go and buy an M3 machine gun if we want to.

[Ferret]

I guess you are reading into my posts something that was never said. I said guns are designed to kill .......full stop. Where did the "people" come into it??? Again you are being insulting!!!!

I don't necessarily agree with many of the pro gun arguments or the anti gun arguments. To my way of thinking the supporters of the very extreme sides of some arguments are often nutters, this is perhaps more so in the gun debates.

I have been involved in competitive shooting for many years, though rarely shoot now days. Over the years I have carried firearms into and shot in countries in North America, Asia and Europe as well as across Australia and NZ. I mention this just as a basis to express an opinion.

To me, as a shooter, I regarded my rifles as nothing more than a tennis player probably regards his tennis racquet. It's just a necessary piece of equipment needed to play the game. This was not an uncommon view among many of the people I mixed with in shooting circles from around the world.

Rifles can be designed and made to exceed the performance of any shooter. That is the rifle is not the limiting factor in the sport of shooting. It is the person. In this respect, the rifles designed for such purposes are not designed to kill since merely killing (anything) can be accomplished with much cruder pieces of equipment costing far, far less. They are designed to punch holes in paper with precision and that is their motivation for manufacture and usually their motivation for acquisition by the people who buy them.

Yes, they can be used for killing but for some categories of rifles not the reason for their design and manufacture. They are just bits of sporting equipment, nothing more.

Having said all that I support firearms control. I think the balance between control and ownership is fairly well done in Australia while recognising nothing is ever perfect. I think most people can get what they need to go about their business, whether it be hunting or target.

By the way, I sense your not really looking for an argument nor take one or the other of the extreme sides of the gun control debate but I'd just thought I'd comment on something you said, which as a general statement about firearms, I don't agree with.

[Ausfree]

I don't necessarily agree with many of the pro gun arguments or the anti gun arguments. To my way of thinking the supporters of the very extreme sides of some arguments are often nutters, this is perhaps more so in the gun debates.

I have been involved in competitive shooting for many years, though rarely shoot now days. Over the years I have carried firearms into and shot in countries in North America, Asia and Europe as well as across Australia and NZ. I mention this just as a basis to express an opinion.

To me, as a shooter, I regarded my rifles as nothing more than a tennis player probably regards his tennis racquet. It's just a necessary piece of equipment needed to play the game. This was not an uncommon view among many of the people I mixed with in shooting circles from around the world.

Rifles can be designed and made to exceed the performance of any shooter. That is the rifle is not the limiting factor in the sport of shooting. It is the person. In this respect, the rifles designed for such purposes are not designed to kill since merely killing (anything) can be accomplished with much cruder pieces of equipment costing far, far less. They are designed to punch holes in paper with precision and that is their motivation for manufacture and usually their motivation for acquisition by the people who buy them.

Yes, they can be used for killing but for some categories of rifles not the reason for their design and manufacture. They are just bits of sporting equipment, nothing more.

Having said all that I support firearms control. I think the balance between control and ownership is fairly well done in Australia while recognising nothing is ever perfect. I think most people can get what they need to go about their business, whether it be hunting or target.

By the way, I sense your not really looking for an argument nor take one or the other of the extreme sides of the gun control debate but I'd just thought I'd comment on something you said, which as a general statement about firearms, I don't agree with.
Thankyou for a civilised response to my post!!!:) You have hit the nail on the head, I am not looking for an argument with anybody, but I do take exception to rudeness.

I am not against firearms at all. People such as yourself, who use firearms for a legal purpose have my full support. As a matter of fact if I had more time, I wouldn't mind taking up target shooting myself. I also admire people who do archery.
We are all different, and if you disagree with something I have posted, that's fine.:D:D

[Greatsouthernland]

. /Out There.



:rolleyes:

[123rover50]

Must be a lot without any but.
I know two in town with over 150 between them:angel:

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/06/850.jpg (http://s939.photobucket.com/user/123rover50/media/IMG_1316_zps4d792094.jpg.html)

Didiman

[123rover50]

Must be because the Gun Show is on this weekend.
We will be there.
not that we need any more guns but do need the Three P,s
Primers, Powder, & Projectiles.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/06/849.jpg (http://s939.photobucket.com/user/123rover50/media/gunshow_zps1a74e1c6.jpeg.html)

Didiman

[Mick_Marsh]

Heard an American on the radio last week say they are averaging a mass shooting about once a week in America.
I cannot find a suitable adjective that does this justice.

I am a lic shooter and have both hand guns and long rifles and shoot very dangerous paper animals:p
Careful. Those paper animals could have your leg off. Vicious things.

[d@rk51d3]

Paper cuts can be quite fearsome.

[Andrew D]

FWIW I think our own gun buyback was stupid and the wrong thing to do, but at the same time I don't really think we really need the right to go and buy an M3 machine gun if we want to.

I think the concept of the buyback has some merit.

USA cant see the forest for trees on this topic and I personally wish them the best of luck because logic appears to be eluding them.

http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/gunbuyback_panel.pdf

Regards
Andrew

[Greatsouthernland]

I think the concept of the buyback has some merit.

USA cant see the forest for trees on this topic and I personally wish them the best of luck because logic appears to be eluding them.

http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/gunbuyback_panel.pdf

Regards
Andrew

Interesting finding from the above research -

"Although the NFA buyback targeted firearms that were of the type that had been commonly used in crimes, an important feature of the buyback is that very few of the firearms handed in to police were military-style automatic-fire weapons. For the state of Victoria (the only jurisdiction to provide a breakdown of the types of guns handed in), Reuter and Mouzos (2003) report that nearly half of the guns were .22 caliber rifles, and almost all the remainder were shotguns. Less than one in 1,000 of the weapons handed back in Victoria was an automatic."

207,409 guns handed in from Victorians (1/3rd of the national total).

So about 200 rifles similar to the one used in PA removed from Vic. Not sure what to make of that finding at this stage...

[123rover50]

There were thousands of SK semiauto rifles sold during the 80,s
I remember A Mart at Kawana Waters near Mooloolaba had them and ammo for sale. Walk in and buy one.
Farm Fests and Ag shows etc all had people selling them.
There were bugger all handed in so they are out there on properties or buried in PVC pipes.
They are not doing any harm.

[isuzurover]

There were thousands of SK semiauto rifles sold during the 80,s
I remember A Mart at Kawana Waters near Mooloolaba had them and ammo for sale. Walk in and buy one.
Farm Fests and Ag shows etc all had people selling them.
There were bugger all handed in so they are out there on properties or buried in PVC pipes.
They are not doing any harm.

A relative of mine was shooting on a property, where there was another shooter present at the time, about 12 months after the buyback ended.
Over the next ridge he heard a rapid fire.
When he came across the guy he said "you are quick with a bolt action", the guy frankly replied that it was a semi auto and he hadn't bothered to hand it in.

[Disco Muppet]

I think the concept of the buyback has some merit.

USA cant see the forest for trees on this topic and I personally wish them the best of luck because logic appears to be eluding them.

http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/gunbuyback_panel.pdf

Regards
Andrew

Conceptually, sure it's great.
But execution wise it was poorly done.