The New Daily

Spike in handgun crimes reveals nation’s secret problem

EXCLUSIVE: The black market for guns is bigger than previously understood and crimes involving handguns are rising sharply, shows never-before-seen data published today by The New Daily.

Crimes relating to concealable handguns are rising at a worrying rate.

Australians may be more at risk from gun crime than ever before with the country’s underground market for firearms ballooning in the past decade.

Previously unseen police statistics show that the number of pistol-related offences doubled in Victoria and rose by 300 per cent in New South Wales. At least two other states also saw a massive jump in firearms-related offences during the same period.

nsw-gun-charges

An investigation by The New Daily unearthed previously unpublished data for firearms offences collected from police and crime statistics agencies in four states – Victoria, NSW, South Australia and Tasmania.

The statistics detail the types of firearms offences police have pursued in the courts in the past decade and show some concerning findings, including a massive 83 per cent increase in firearms offences in NSW between 2005/06 and 2014/15, and an even bigger jump in Victoria over the same period.

vic-gun-charges

Taken together, the data suggests that despite our tough anti-gun laws, thousands of weapons are either being stolen or entering the country illegally.

Associate Professor Philip Alpers, one of Australia’s leading firearms researchers and a director of the Centre for Armed Violence Reduction at the University of Sydney, said the national ban on semi-automatic weapons following the Port Arthur massacre had spawned criminal demand for handguns.

“The ban on semi-automatics created demand by criminals for other types of guns,” he said, adding: “The criminal’s gun of choice today is the semi-automatic pistol.”

Our investigation found:

NSW: in 2014-15, there were 3463 firearms charges, up 83 per cent on 2005-06
Victoria: in 2014-15, there were 3645 firearms-related charges, up 85 per cent on 2005-06
SA: in 2014, charges for possession and trafficking of guns are up 49 per cent on 2010-11
Tasmania: in 2014, charges for unlawful gun possession were up 32 per cent on 2005-06

The big picture: What the numbers indicate

There are several ways to interpret the data: either the rate of offending has risen dramatically in the past decade or the problem was always much larger than previously understood.

The data also indicates that police have taken a more proactive and hardline approach to enforcement in recent years and are uncovering more offences than ever before.

NSW police say the sharp increase in charges laid in their state is due to a tighter focus by authorities on policing illicit weapons.

“In recent years police have been more proactive in their targeting of illegal weapons, particularly in relation to known or suspected criminals,” Detective Superintendent Mick Plotecki of the NSW firearms squad told The New Daily.

But he conceded more firearms and gun parts are being imported illegally and that there had been an increase in the number of weapons stolen from registered owners.

But Jack Wegman, the chief executive of the Victorian arm of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia, rejects suggestions that thefts from registered owners are a major supply source for the black market.

“While we dispute claims that firearms are entering the black market through theft from law-abiding firearms owners, we acknowledge that locking firearms safely and in accordance with the law ensures they remain in the possession of people the police deem fit and proper, rather than the criminals,” he said.

Although The New Daily has not been able to obtain data for Queensland and WA, the NSW statistics strongly suggest that the 12 months to the end of June 2011 was a turning point in the policing of Australia’s black market for firearms and ammunition.

In that year the charge count soared by almost 30 per cent in NSW, partly driven by a 61 per cent surge in charges for unauthorised possession of handguns. In the following year, the Victorian charge count also soared on the back of a 76 per cent blowout in ammunition-related charges.

The ammunition problem

Illegal handgun

An illegal handgun and ammunition seized by police in 2015. Photo: AAP

While firearms charges are now surging in the four states, there is some variation in the growth patterns of each state. Illegally acquired ammunition has emerged as the most charge-prone offence under the Firearms Acts of Tasmania and Victoria.

The number of offences recorded by Victoria Police for unlawful possession of ammunition in 2014/15 was 1093 – a fourfold increase on the 271 charges laid in 2004/05.

In Tasmania, the number of charges for unlawful possession of ammunition doubled to 197 last year from 98 in 2005. Ammunition-related possession offences also doubled in NSW to 626 from 296 in 2005.

ammunition

Boxes of ammunition taken by police in NSW. Photo: AAP

Samantha Lee, an advocate for tighter firearms laws at Gun Control Australia, said the laws regulating the sale of ammunition in Tasmania and Victoria were weak.

“There is very little regulation of ammunition purchase,” she said. “In most jurisdictions you can purchase ammunition because you have a firearm licence and there is no restriction on the type you can purchase – so if you own a rifle you can still purchase ammunition for a handgun.”

Assoc Prof Alpers said the increased police focus on the ammunition trade had been an important development.

“Gun enthusiasts are quite right when they say guns don’t kill – it’s the bullets that kill,” he said. “For many years we just focused on the guns and ignored the ammunition that was lying around – now people are starting to realise that ammunition control is just as important.”

Gun trade goes underground

The fourfold rise in handgun-related charges in NSW in the past decade points to the existence of a big illegal market for concealable firearms that seems to have been underestimated in the past.

Detective Superintendent Plotecki said there was no specific profile of the types of people charged with pistol offences, but there was often a link to drug crime.

“We often find a link between firearms offences and mid-level drug crime,” he said.

While the problem of illegal pistol possession is growing fastest in NSW, Victoria police still laid more charges for this offence last year. In the 12 months to the end of June, there were 197 charges for illegal pistol possession in NSW compared to 349 for the equivalent offence in Victoria.

This is the first in a special series on Australia’s hidden gun problem to be published by The New Daily. Tomorrow: gun crimes and your suburb. We reveal the nation’s illegal weapons hot spots.

bulllets-top-stories

  • mike

    What a load of sensationalist rubbish. The sources have been disproven many times. The NSW Deputy Premier stated what the problem is… it is the CRIMINALS stupid.

    • Fred

      Well said, Mike. The author seems confused too, what are “illegally imported registered firearms”?

      • wombat_7777

        Its journalism, Jim, but not as we know it……

  • mike

    And I bet the moderator does not let my comment through.

    • Tarzipan

      That’s discus for you!

  • Craniologist

    It has been a long time coming for the cops to concentrate on the illegal weapons market. It is over 20 years ago since my son was working part time in security in the night clubs where the staff often became aware of such things as to who to go to for drugs and guns. It was a matter of course that the security blokes would tip off the cops about these things but there was often little effort to follow up. It is good to see that this is where the major effort should be concentrated. I own legal rifles and I couldn’t agree more on tightening up ammo purchases. It has often concerned me that ammo in .44 and .357 magnum calibre were easy to buy as there are rifles that use the same ammo so even a legitimate owner of one of these rifles could be a source of illegal supply. Anyone buying one of those rifles should be checked out very seriously.

    Legal firearms owners have been painted as being the baddies for too long and it is also past time that they looked more intensely at the at the sources of the guns in the hands of criminals.

  • Pato

    Its blatantly obvious Samantha Lee now targeting ammunition through ‘selected states’ and linking criminal activities to bring up a headline to continue to demonise sporting and recreational shooting.Any resonsible gun owner has their weapons and ammunition locked up .
    Where are the stats to show all those stolen registered firearms involved in crime.

  • Jay Dubb

    Some interesting stuff here.

    Clearly the massive cost of the firearms confiscations of 1996 and 2003 have had no positive impact on firearm crime, if they had the offence figures would be lower each year.

    546 charges for illegal pistol possession in NSW and Vic is not the complete story and needs to be related to the number of handgun thefts to show where these illegal weapons are coming from.

    Philip Alpers is one of Australias foremost anti gun protesters who uses his association with the University of Sydney to validate his opinion.

    Samantha Lee is the “lone wolf” operative of Gun Control Australia, an organisation with one member, Samantha Lee

    Continued demonization of guns will continue to miss-direct crime fighting efforts away from criminals and towards law abiding firearm owners.

    • Athinker

      Jay Dubb – No positive impact? Australia has not had a serious mass shooting since 1996. It is viewed throughout the world as a leader in the area.

      Please explain why anyone outside law enforcement and the military needs to carry a handgun.

      • Aaron

        This is completely false. There were the Monash shootings. Also the article quite clearly points out that firearm crimes are on the increase. New Zealand and Canada have also not had the sort of mass killings as experienced in the USA yet they don’t have a registry and allow semi autos. Correlation does not equal causation.
        Outside certain professions, no one in Australia can carry a pistol. Current owners use them for sporting shooting.

        • Bah, humbug

          Not quite right, Aaaron. Canada does occasionally have mass shootings, though certainly not on the scale of the US. See http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/12/30/10_of_the_worst_mass_murders_in_canada.html, which includes mass shootings. Doesn’t list what weapons were used. I can’t speak about the Kiwis, maybe they’re too busy with sheep, who knows.

          • Garavella Yk

            if you read that article, more than half are not shootings: explosives, arson, unnamed slayings, gangland wars and so on

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            Oh, well those are perfectly okay, then.

          • Garavella Yk

            we’re discussing on a topic.
            it’s typical of people without arguments to sidetrack.

          • Drawer22

            @Garavella Yk – Sidetracking is what you did when interjecting the issues regarding “…explosives, arson, unnamed slayings, gangland wars and so on. (sic)” Careful that what you post does not indict you!

            Cogito, ergo armatus sum.

          • Garavella Yk

            I disagree. Someone posted a link to prove Canada does occasionally have mass shootings even though the linked article does say “murders” not shootings.
            It is acceptable to refute shoddy proof, don’t you think?

          • Garavella Yk

            well, those show that guns are not needed for murder to be committed.
            there are other means that are used more often yet everyone focuses on guns.

          • Nathan Stewart

            If you will look very closely here in the U.S., you will see that every mass shooting happened in a gun free zone.. food for thought but i would think if there wasnt any “gun free zones” around, there might not be any mass shootings

        • Chris Thomas

          There was also the Flinders street shooting. Not to mention all the shootings from the gangland wars.

      • vas

        No one other than police or security “carries” a handgun legally. Its never been legal for the private carrying of handguns.

        • Gordon

          I would never live or visit a country where I could not carry a gun for self defense. It is scary that the Aussie is so authoritarian.

          • mulga mumblebrain

            Thank God for that-you will definitely not be missed.

          • vas

            I am actually pro gun but do not see why it is necessary to carry concealed guns. Possibly many Americans have a paranoia issue, partly due to your serious social issues and lack of policing. What about individuals that are carrying and then decide to drink alcohol – can you honestly say this never happens. What about the many instances where children have gotten hold of the gun and either shot themselves or the parent by accident .
            The USA is the only place in the world that has “loose” gun carrying laws.

        • Tarzipan

          High School kids on their way to Cadets on buses and trains with .303’s as recently as the 1980’s would have disagreed with you.

      • robertg222

        Before the gun control act of 1934 anybody in the US could order a fully automatic firearm through the mail. Before 1934 there were no mass school shootings. Now we have gun free school zones and shootings in the gun free zones. Explain again how gun control helps.

        • Garavella Yk

          he can’t. He or she will just deflect or say something about manly parts.

        • Tarzipan

          I read something the other day about Roosevelt. Apparently he tried to bring in a national registry of all guns and the Gun Conmtrol Act of 1934 was a compromise or even a defeat, fortunately.
          What a piece of pond scum he was.

      • kevin777

        “Australia has not had a serious mass shooting since 1996.” Neither has New Zealand. You think that was due to gun control laws?

        “It is viewed throughout the world as a leader in the area.” LOL. No. you’ve viewed as a servile submissive complaint people.

      • Zibgnew Opinionski

        So, it’s better that 100 get shot individually than 10 get shot together? H’mmmm, sounds sort of Stalin-ish to me. He said “Better to shoot 200 hundred innocent people, than let one guilty one go free”!!

      • Zibgnew Opinionski

        wow total censorship here. “Waiting to be approved”!!!

        • Tarzipan

          I’ve had the same problem with Discus, which is why I haven’t bothered to comment using it for about 4 years.
          There also seems to be rather few forums where you don’t have to go through twitter/facebook/discus/google and just post anonymously.
          Discus is quite the little censor.

      • martster

        People need to carry them, for the protection of their lives and loved ones, Mr. Liberal. It is a natural right (not a privilege), given to us by our Creator, and in the U.S.it is safeguarded by our 2nd Amendment. You can argue about “mass shootings,” but neither I nor any other law-abiding person commits them. We protect against them. Our founders made it so that everyone who hates guns has to remain troubled, in his or her psychotic and fearful frame of mind.

        It goes like this: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” God, these words are golden.

        • Garavella Yk

          That’s correct, the right to self-defense is a natural right even though the UN paid for a study to say it isn’t.
          Think about it, when in danger one can choose to flee or fight. This applies to all creatures on this planet.
          Having a right does not guarantee an outcome but rather prevents law from hindering said right.

          The right to live is not a natural right. Everyone and everything dies eventually.

        • mulga mumblebrain

          ‘Our founders’, ‘liberals’ as term of abuse, gibberish about ‘God’ etc-another Yank, but one so dumb that he appears to think that we are in the USA, or that US law applies everywhere. Could be a senior US politician.

        • All gun owners are “law abiding” until they commit a crime then you take them out of that group to keep your record, really how long do you have to hold a gun before you are incapable of being removed from the “law abiding” group when you commit a crime?
          The law abiding argumant is so porous oil could flow through it unimpeded.

          • Garavella Yk

            anyone is law-abiding until he or she commits a crime.
            your argument is weak.

      • Willbill

        “Please explain why anyone outside law enforcement and the military needs to carry a handgun.”

        Have you ever heard of self-defense?

        “Australia has not had a serious mass shooting since 1996.”

        Neither has New Zealand, and they didn’t enact Australia’s draconian gun laws.

        Mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand: A descriptive study of incidence, by Samara McPhedran and Jeanine Baker, published in the Justice Policy Journal, Vol. 8, No. 1, Spring 2011

        Abstract

        The development of legislation aimed at reducing the incidence of firearm-related death is an ongoing interest within the spheres of criminology, public policy, and criminal justice.

        Although a body of research has examined the impacts of significant epochs of regulatory reform upon firearm-related suicides and homicides in countries like Australia, where strict nationwide firearms regulations were introduced in 1996, relatively little research has considered the occurrence of a specific type of homicide: mass shooting events.

        The current paper examines the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand (a country that is socioeconomically similar to Australia, but with a different approach to firearms regulation) over a 30 year period.

        It does not find support for the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms has prevented mass shootings, with New Zealand not experiencing a mass shooting since 1997 despite the availability in that country of firearms banned in Australia.

        These findings are discussed in the context of social and economic trends

        Next

        • Protect_OUR_Constitution

          STOP CONFUSING HOPLOPHOBES WITH FACTS!
          You’re hurting their brains.

      • Mel Meskill

        Jay Dudd, please explain why police ot the military NEED to carry a handgun. The people need handguns for same reasons that the police or military need handguns.

      • JerryJones4Pres

        So you’re saying the reason there hasn’t been a mass shooting, is because of gun laws? Makes no sense considering people are still getting guns. Which means if someone did want to commit a mass shooting, odds are they would, regardless of the laws you have on the books.

      • A. Edelstein

        Why would your govt. stage mass shootings if they already took your guns?

      • Name

        That is odd, I count at least 5 mass shootings right here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia
        Well, if someone were going to attack you, would you rather call the police and wait for their arrival, or would you prefer to handle the situation on your own?

      • Sianmink

        Neither has New Zealand, who did not enact restrictive firearms laws since 1996.

      • mulga mumblebrain

        Because their tiny psyches require it.

        • Garavella Yk

          in other words you have no arguments

      • cenonce

        Simple. To defend themselves.

      • Garavella Yk

        Yes, no positive impact. Why do you think those guys were illegally carrying their guns for? To comfort people?

      • mulga mumblebrain

        The gun-freaks are well organised. Darkness draws in, the worst are full of passionate intensity and the good lack all conviction. We are slouching into the dark.

        • Tarzipan

          You’re too kind. You lot seem pretty organised yourselves.
          I hope you can take a compliment.

      • Bill Richardson

        police carry handguns to protect themselves… same reason a person outside law enforcement/military would… Bad people have guns, so when you are confronted by one, your solution is… To die? For your family to be killed in front of you? I think I’d rather resist and not leave the decision as to whether I live or die, entirely to a criminal.

      • Rocky Lui

        Self defence is a strong enough reason for civilians to carry a handgun, regardless open or conceal carry. Armed civilians do have a positive impact on public safety, lowering the rate of homicide, but not in the way how the US works. I personally is a licensed handgun shooter, but not really agree with the US gun laws. However, the licensing system in AU is sufficient enough, not needing another piece of regulation in gun control. Over-control or “ban” does not help the situation. Train the civilians on conceal carry in a responsible way will assist huge on public safety.

      • Drawer22

        @Athinker – Explanation: As a civilian who is formerly Special Forces (with multiple, voluntary, combat deployments as experience) and a former law enforcement officer (LEO), I carry a semi-automatic sidearm daily, everywhere lawfully permitted. I do so to assure the safety of myself and others, should the need for my expertise arise, as I would suggest every responsibly armed person should. It has been my observation that there are bad people out there who will do harm to others; I do not abide such criminals, particularly when they are in the act of attempting harm.

        Cogito, ergo armatus sum.

      • LookoutforChris

        No serious mass shooting? So there have been some minor mass shootings then? Little ones? Tiny mass shootings here and there. What a total crock. What a disingenuous comment. There have been several mass shootings since 1996: Monash, Flinders, Logan, Hunt Family, Hectoriville, Sydney Hostage. Australia still has gun crime, gun murders, and mass shootings, despite their ban.

    • Bah, humbug

      “Clearly the massive cost of the firearms confiscations (sic) of 1996 and 2003 have had no positive impact on firearm crime, if they had the offence figures would be lower each year.”

      Well yes, the gun buyback has had an effect. We haven’t had any mass killings since Port Arthur.

      See here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/ and here: http://insidestory.org.au/the-upsides-of-the-buyback. Far from a “massive cost”, the buyback has paid for itself many times over. “The value of a statistical life most commonly used by Australian policy-makers is $2.5 million. On this basis, the economic value of saving 200 lives a year is around half a billion dollars, so the economic value of the gun buyback every year is about the same as the one-off cost paid in 1996–97. Since it was implemented, the gun buyback has paid for itself more than ten times over. And the vast bulk of the benefit came not from reduced mass shootings, but from an entirely unexpected source: fewer gun suicides.”

      So, wrong on the “massive cost”, and wrong on the results of the buyback. Might I suggest a little more research before making outlandishly inaccurate statements? You seem to have an issue with critical thinking. Or you’ve simply uttered a deliberate terminological inexactitude.

      • wombat_7777

        Nonsense – the number of homicides hasnt changed much, just a move has occurred from guns to knives…..
        So overall – at a society level – nothing has improved.

        I’d call that a fail.

        • Spanner19

          Knives were always the most popular murder weapon in Australia

      • Trevor Mack

        Your implication that 200 lives each year have been saved is rather tenuous. No empirical support for this at all.

        • Bah, humbug

          Actually, Trev, it’s not my “implication”. I believe the authors of the article said that. Tricky language, English.

          As for empirical support, perhaps you should read the article. I provided a link, and I’m assuming you know how to click on one. Move your cursor to the link, then click the left button on your rodent. See what happens.

          • Brett Nortje

            Lets see if I understand correctly: You got people bullied into ‘surrendering’ their individual liberties, and now you have little to show for it other than 1 prevented projected potential theoretical mass shooting a year.

            The definition of fascism I like most is that it entails the use of public power for private personal ends.

            What you did?

      • Willbill

        “On this basis, the economic value of saving 200 lives a year is around half a billion dollars…”

        That is based on the false assumption that 200 lives a year has been saved. Nevertheless, illegal guns are coming into Australia. Only criminals have all sorts of banned guns, and the government is powerless to stop it.

        “And the vast bulk of the benefit came not from reduced mass shootings, but from an entirely unexpected source: fewer gun suicides.”

        Not so fast.

        Japan has the most extreme firearms prohibitions and according to Smallarmssurvey.org they rank 164th in civilian firearms ownership per 100, so the casual observer would believe that Japan would have a low suicide rate. Yet, their suicide rate was a shocking 23.8 per 100,000 in 2011 and ranked 7th in the world.

        By contrast the U.S. ranks 1st in firearms ownership per 100, so the casual observer would believe that the U.S would be in the top five in suicides. Yet, the suicide rate in the U.S. was 11.8 per 100,000 in 2008 and ranked 41st in the world.

        Gun control does not equal suicide control.

      • Name

        Untrue. I see at least 5 mass shootings since then listed here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia
        Perhaps you should learn to do some research yourself. 😉

        • You must be blind I see one in you list, fires and blunt instruments are NOT mass shootings.

      • L84Cabo

        Well yea…no mass killings…I mean…except for that whole hostage situation in the chocolate shop in Sydney. But let’s not count that. And quoting the Washington Post? One of the most liberal rags on the planet? How about quoting a legitimate and trustworthy source.

      • Bill Richardson

        Love how you pick your stats… “fewer gun suicides”. This is from Lifeline.org.au –
        “Deaths by suicide have reached a 10-year peak.
        The most recent Australian data (ABS, Causes of Death, 2012) reports deaths due to suicide at 2,535.
        The overall suicide rate in 2012 was 11.0 per 100,000, compared to the 2011 rate of 9.9 per 100,000.”
        So you have fewer gun suicides, but suicides are up? That would be something to be proud of, alright… Less of the dead are dying from guns…. Bravo.

  • Dermot Lynch

    The judicial system must take some of the blame for the proliferation of handguns. There is absolutely no reason for any citizen to be carrying a gun. When a gun is involved there should be severe penalties that would deter them. If having a gun carried a mandatory prison term then maybe there wouldn’t be so many ready to have one. If severe measures are not introduced then the situation is only going to get much worse. Anyone shown to be involved with any aspect of the illegal gun trade should be on notice that they will spend time in prison – no exceptions. Make the message loud and clear.

    • Brett Nortje

      Except that that citizen might WANT to carry a gun?

      Who decides what preferences of free people are justified?

      You?

      • Athinker

        Brett Nortje – society standards, expectations, and the law decide these things. Here in Australia, individual citizens have no need nor right to carry a gun, unless hunting or at a gun club.

        I note that the rest of your posts are on South African issues. Australia is not South Africa. And I have a question. Who drew your attention to this thread?

        • Garavella Yk

          Society standards and expectations change with the length of the skirts.
          Not a good reason to infringe on people’s rights.

          I hope you don’t need a gun for the rest of your life but some would like to be prepared.

      • Dermot Lynch

        Society decides through its representatives. Our society has decided that no citizen can carry a gun and if you find that unacceptable then you need to consider whether another society is more suited to your desires. The crucial words here are “citizen” and “carry”. Those charged with the security of our society take on a role that makes them more than “citizens” and those who choose to use guns in gun clubs etc are not “carrying” them outside of the confines of a controlled area. Any other citizen who wants to carry a gun needs to consider relocating to Texas or some other area that accepts carrying a gun – here in Australia it is not accepted – it is illegal and should be dealt with severely. With freedom comes responsibility and acceptance and compliance with the laws of the society that they are “free” in. So to answer your question – no it is not for me to make that decision, our society has done so with the laws that it has introduced. As a free person you can always campaign for a change in the law provided you can get enough support from other “free people”. I suspect you would be fighting a losing battle as most “free people” in our society take comfort in knowing that arguments, disagreements etc are unlikely to result in someone being frustrated or angry enough to draw a gun.

  • Dermot Lynch

    Guns in our society can be a form of terrorism – anyone involved in the importation, distribution or possession of a gun should be subject to the same measures as a would be terrorist.

    • wombat_7777

      Now hang on – that comment assumes anyone who own s a gun is a potential terrorist…
      The terrorism thing is thrown around too easily and needs to be better thought through.
      Poor laws and lazy tthinking harm society way more than a few guns every could – look at history for proof.

      • Dermot Lynch

        My comment states “can be”. I stand by my statement and firmly believe that anyone involved with the importation, distribution and or possession of an illegal gun should be treated as a potential terrorist.

        • Brett Nortje

          Well, you’ve back-pedalled.

          • Athinker

            No Brett Nortje, wombat_7777 has not back-pedalled.

          • Dermot Lynch

            I fail to see how I have back peddled – it seems more likely that you have misread my original post and my reiteration has shown that your assumption is incorrect.

  • Dermot Lynch

    It’s absolutely ridiculous that the prisons are overcrowded with a substantial number of inmates that are not a threat to society but a clever barrister can help someone who has been involved with a gun escape a prison sentence. Serious offenders are escaping prison sentences because of the current overcrowding situation. Instead of not imprisoning because of lack of room, perhaps it’s time to appoint a body to review cases of current inmates that are doing time for actions that were non threatening to society, with the aim being to offer them alternative punishment so that room can be made for the ones that shouldn’t be allowed to remain free in society.

  • Athinker

    What is the penalty for unauthorised possession of a handgun? It should be massive.

    • vas

      Penalties are irrelevant if the judges choose not to apply them as is actually the case more often than not.

    • Chris Thomas

      I think it’s often a suspended sentence, criminal conviction and a fine. From memory the fine is no more than a few grand. But don’t quote me. I do know Vic is meant to be passing much tougher sentencing laws. For anyone who’s interested see Japanese approach to carying concealed pistols. They have massive sentences in the order of 7 years jail for simple possession, much more if discharged. Yakuza are on record for saying the only reason they don’t carry a gun is because of the penalties.

      • Tarzipan

        Yeah but it doesn’t seem to stop them from being able to strong-arm anyone they like, from the Prime Minister (Emporer?) right down to the neighbourhood grocer being lent on for protection money.
        No, the solution is to let everyone carry, except those with a serious criminal record who’ll be bale to get them anyway.

        • Chris Thomas

          Agree with your 1st point entirely and partly with your second. Although a part of me would like concealed carry there are too many hot heads to only restrict it from convicted fellons. With comprehensive vetting and training not unlike what u have to do already for a pistol license, as well as education on legal ramifications, I personally would be ok with it.

    • Brett Nortje

      Mere unauthorised possession? Without any further criminal nexus?

      • Athinker

        Brett Nortje – Are you suggesting that unauthorised possession of a handgun is not a serious crime?

        • Garavella Yk

          Yes.
          What if someone slips a handgun in your grocery bag?
          You posses it and it is very difficult to prove it’s not yours.

  • Athinker

    Sounds sensible to me.

    • Garavella Yk

      until someone plants a gun on you and you lose everything you care for.

  • Roger Brown

    So if someone breaks in and puts a gun to your head and steals your firearm from your locked box , its your fault ???? I used to shoot pistols (.44mag , .22 short ) and had pump action shot gun , semi-auto .22 , .222 and 6.5 caliber rifles when i was young. So carrying guns to sporting shooters club is no reason to carry a gun (Dermot Lynch) ? The Howard govt. took my shotgun and semi auto .22 and gave me money to buy some new ones ? In over 30 yrs, nobody has come around to check on my firearms or their housing. To get my .222 rifle out of my strong box , they would have to bring a bobcat in and destroy half my house . 30 yrs ago , they were mounted on a wooden rack on my wall in my parents house .Out west , farmers left guns in utes outside pubs with their dogs and nothing happened . This story is about ILLEGAL firearms coming into Australia , due to Govt. cuts to Departments that check containers / parcels etc etc. Don’t blame citizens that do the right thing , chase the criminals that bring in these illegal firearms .

    • hanspy

      Yes. You allowed a person who you clearly not belonged there, near you when you opened that locker. If course some guns get stolen/lost etc etc. But you know? How careful will you be when it turns out you did not everything to prevent that from happening? And talking about ILLEGAL fire arms. Well How can that be? Every arm is made. The moment the maker produces a weapon he is the owner. Rest of the story you know.

      • Roger Brown

        “Someone breaks in ” is not me “Allowing ” them in ? and I wasn’t “Opening the locker” . Cars kill more people than guns in Australia , so go ranting some where else .

      • Garavella Yk

        You’re not the sharpest tool in the shed are you now?

  • edweirdo

    Bloody hell! I am running out of ways to be rude to gun owners.
    Don’t give me any bulldust about ‘legal’ guns and ‘illegal’ guns – both will kill people.
    All gun owners should be shot in the leg just to show them how stupid they are.
    Maybe we could up the ante for ‘illegal’ gun owners to both legs.

    • Jay Dubb

      By that logic anyone whose freedom has been won with the help of firearms should be returned to bondage

      • Athinker

        We’re talking about Australia, so yes, anyone whose freedom has been won in Australia with the help of firearms should be returned to bondage.

      • wombat_7777

        I think what happens is some people when they are involved in the trendy cause-du-jour, shoot their mouth off, before engaging grey matter…….

    • Aaron

      Hoplophobe.

    • Don

      Amazing how those who claim to abhor violence are the first to want us gun owners hurt or killed. Methinks you would not qualify to purchase a firearm given your violent tendencies. I suggest some counseling or therapy, even a massage and a pint might help. I usually vent my frustrations at the range, making harmless holes in paper bulls-eyes.

      • wombat_7777

        Yes , its been noted…do as we say or we will…….

        You would have to argue it should disqualify them from positions of repsonsibility or the right to own a firearm.

        I wonder how many anti-gunners have even used a firearm?

  • vas

    Pointless and irrelevant comment. Do we also charge the police at the stations where break ins have occurred and pistols stolen? What about break ins at military storage facilities – they have happened.
    The Sporting Shooters Association has been critical numerous times in the past over the often extremely lenient sentences handed out to criminals and drug dealers caught in possession of an array of guns.

  • wombat_7777

    Mate – next time you have a prang in your car, I’m going to ask it be confiscated from you, after all its a lethal weapon….

    In fact, there were 1200 car deaths in Australia in 2014, but only 20 from firearms.
    You should be bouncing up and down to have cars banned by your own logic…..come on….are you going to have cars banned and traced and if you crash you have it confiscated?
    Well?

  • wombat_7777

    Heres a point for public consideration from official public record, the Commonwealth of Australia Federal Hansard :

    http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;page=0;query=barry%20unsworth%20massacre%20tasmania;rec=1;resCount=Default

    Monday, 20 May 1996
    Page: 729

    Senator BOLKUS(4.17 p.m.)

    “Some nine years ago the then Premier of New South Wales, Barry Unsworth , whilst leaving a meeting of ministers discussing gun issues, stated that it would take a manslaughter in Tasmania before we got nationally uniform and effective gun laws.

    Come on ND – publish this….how many politicians can predict an exact event like this?

    • Tarzipan

      One can add to the list Roland Browne of Gun Control Australia who was on A Current Affair in March 1996 warning there’d be a gun massacre in Tasmania “of massive proportions” if new laws weren’t passed.

  • Aaron

    Some very poor corollary accusations being posed as causation in this article. Criminals did not change from semi automatic rifles to handguns due to the buy back. Take a look at firearm crime by type of weapon anywhere in the world and pistols are massively over represented due to their conceal-ability. Bit hard for a drug dealer to hide a 8kg, metre long rifle.
    You also point out that handgun and ammunition related offenses have increased significantly in NSW, a state which has had ammunition restrictions for quite a while now. Wouldn’t that indicate that the law has achieved nothing?

    • Athinker

      No.

      • Rowan Birch

        How/why “no”?

        • Athinker

          Correlation does not prove causation.

      • wombat_7777

        I’d say based on stats alone, he has a valid point. The laws dont work.

  • Chris

    What on earth are you talking about?
    What does Socialism has to do with guns?
    Unless of course you mean a good old fashion “armed” Revolution, Che Guevara style!!
    Seriously, I think the so called “democratic” nations of the West have caused more deaths than the ones you mentioned

    • Willbill

      “What does Socialism has to do with guns?

      Unless of course you mean a good old fashion “armed” Revolution, Che Guevara style!!”

      Every time a socialist armed revolution won the socialist government disarmed the people. The knew that after taking power the people would eventually turn on they, so of course they wanted the population disarmed.

    • Keithbo61

      You do realize that between Stalin and Mao estimates of well over 70 million were killed. Let’s not forget Pol Pot’s 1.5 million in Cambodia, All socialist countries.

      • David Bickenson

        Dictatorships, by definition, are not socialist!

        • Keithbo61

          Yet so many socialist countries in practice end up with one.

        • Erik Winkler

          So Cuba, UDSSR, China, N/Korea, GDR all are/were not socialist then? You’ve got a very unique understanding of history.

      • Drew from Aus.

        War of Northern Aggression.
        Rifleman behind every blade of grass didn’t save the South……. 😉

    • MichaelZWilliamson

      Ah, Che Guevara, noted racist and hypocrite, on record as regarding blacks as inferior, who smuggled arms across borders when he felt he needed them, regardless of the law.

      A liberal icon.

  • Trevor Mack

    Hitler led a socialist government? News to me — I thought he was held up as the supreme example of right-wing fascism.

    • Brett Nortje

      Called National Socialism? Either way, it is fallacious reasoning to regard fascism and communism as extremes on a continuum. Your graph should be horseshoe-shaped. In methods used and attitudes towards change and individual liberties fascism and authoritarian socialism are pretty close.

      You might not have noticed, but Australia is no longer regarded as the shining beacon of individual rights it once was.

      • Athinker

        I’ve always wondered what the link was between socialism and national socialism. I still don’t know.

        • mulga mumblebrain

          Mussolini said the fascism was corporatism plus state power. These ignorant imbeciles are so easily brainwashed it’s almost pathetic. Their Thought Controllers tell them what to think, and that’s that.

        • Dennis Bidlake

          Hitler was initially drawn to Communism AKA International Socialism. He decided it could not work for the world, but could work for individual nations. Hence National Socialism. He was also an anti hunting vegetarian, with a strong interest in visual arts and architecture. Just goes to show what happens, when you leave the hippies in charge.

        • Drawer22

          @Athinker – Other than historically, it may be easiest to think of socialism as an economic theory and philosophy, while national socialism is that type of thinking applied on a national scale, as the NAZI (“National Socialist”) Party did, with Adolph Hitler forcing application on an all-too-willing and easily manipulated populace.

          Hope the above helps clarify.

          De Oppresso Liber

    • TorringtonBob

      Hitler was in fact the head of a socialist government. He was head of the National Socialist Party (Nazi).
      The fact that he was a dictator doesn’t make him not a socialist. There is nothing right wing about fascism. It is extremely left wing and promotes strong central government.

      • mulga mumblebrain

        Good God. Dumbererererer-and they ALL have a vote!

    • Nick Nicholas

      Perhaps you just might want to learn just what NAZI stands for in German!

    • Wild West

      yes. Hitler led a socialist government. The national socialist German workers party was the only party allowed to exist by law in NAZI Germany. That is what NAZI stands for. The fascists are socialists.

    • Jay Dubb

      Hitler led the National Socialist German Workers’ Party

    • Blaine

      Google the proper name of the nazi party.

    • Trevor Mack

      To all those who have stated the bleeding obvious: Yes, I know NAZI stands for National-Socialist etc. What’s in a name? By your reasoning our Liberal Party members should be shining lights of liberalism instead of the right-wing control freaks they actually are. I also know that almost any county’s revolutionary “Liberation Front” is aiming for anything but liberation of the people. Despite its name, Hitler’s regime was an extreme right totalitarian dictatorship. And a note to “Wild West”: fascist socialist is an oxymoron. Fascists are for total control OF the people, socialists are for total control BY the people (And please, no outraged cries from those who by-and-large have never understood the difference between socialism and totalitarianism).

    • Paladin

      National Socialists…..NDSAP

    • LookoutforChris

      Ummm … the National SOCIALIST German Worker’s Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei), also called the Nazi Party? It’s right in the name…

  • Johnny

    You are a champion and such a grown up – who has to carry a penis substitute. Is that how you see it? You have a BIG gun so you are rough and tough? Just saying, ya know?

    • anoneemoose

      Assuming Jay Dubb is in Australia, “rough and tough” is not a genuine reason for gun ownership, let alone carrying.

      Firearms carrying is entirely for occupational and government reasons, such as armed security, police or some kind of governor approved person.

      • Brett Nortje

        An armed warrior class, where the plebs are forbidden to own firearms….It shows in the headlines. The expansion of a Big Brother state.

        • Athinker

          Brett Nortje – I prefer to describe Australia as a place where the plebs are protected by the presence of no easily accessible guns.

          • Garavella Yk

            I thought the article we’re commenting on states just the opposite. Guns are easy to get and they’re used more and more often.

          • Tarzipan

            Preferring it doesn’t make it so.

          • Athinker

            How would you know Tarzipan?

            This is the first Australian topic you have ever commented on. Pretty clear you don’t live here.

            But feel free to visit. We’re very nice to tourists. 🙂

          • Tarzipan

            Completely irrelevant where I live to the basics of my argument.
            I happen to live in Australia; what about you?

          • Brett Nortje

            With government as a wise but strict Headmaster figure?

      • Athinker

        anoneemoose – This is the only Australian topic Jay Dubb has commented on. Given his claim of having the right to carry, it wouldn’t surprise me if he’s not Australian, and is yet another ignorant outsider encouraged to come to this thread by the NRA and its plants all over the world.

    • Brett Nortje

      How is it an egobooster if no-one else knows he has it? Fallacious reasoning.

      • Athinker

        No. Psychology theory would disagree with you there I suspect.

        • Brett Nortje

          What? Paranoid?

      • mulga mumblebrain

        Brilliant understanding of the nature of the ego. It’s Id boosting, too.

        • Brett Nortje

          As in ‘the Wizard’? You have a good point there. The gun prohibitionists appear to regard gun owners as peasants – and pretty revolting ones too.

        • Tarzipan

          It’s frickin’ survival boosting sometimes too.

    • mulga mumblebrain

      That’s what it’s all about. Psychological inadequates and cripples who want to feel BIG.

  • Spanner19

    And the biggest state in the country..Western Australia doesn’t get a mention…probably because it has gthe tightest gun laws in the country..

  • Trevor Mack

    I sincerely hope that the subsequent articles on “gun crime” are more responsibly researched. Known anti-gun activists Phillip Alpers and Samantha Lee are hardly reliable sources of data for this topic.

  • Bah, humbug

    Ah, here we go – Vacuous Asinine Statements, yet again. Your knees must be very fit, vas, considering how much exercise they get, jerking in reaction to every opinion that disagrees (you know, because it’s based on evidence and not gut reaction) with yours. Usually I focus on facts and figures and not abuse, but since that seems to be your stock and trade, it’s hard to resist.

    Linked “a single shooting event to some law change”: I pointed out that since the gun buyback, we went from having roughly one mass shooting a year to – that’s right, none. For almost twenty years. Statistically insignificant? Perhaps, in that bubble you live in, which must be rapidly running out of oxygen. Most rational people who look at that stat just might disagree with you. I certainly do. How long before you’ll concede there may – just may – be a connection? Another twenty years? Thirty? Forty? Of course it doesn’t mean some lunatic won’t be able to organise one at some point, but it does appear that it now seems far less likely. As much as I dislike John Howard, I and most of the rest of the population are grateful to him for ramming that through.

    Invent my own statistics? No vas, did you even read the articles Iinked? No, of course not. Had you done so, you would have read “Howard cites a study (pdf) by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University finding that the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provides strong circumstantial evidence for the law’s effectiveness.”

    There are, of course, some gun nuts around who will never see a connection, and we must accept that some people never will, just as some will look at another stat: that 95-odd % of the world’s scientists say that the climate is changing due to human beings, and most of the rest say maybe, and one or two say no. You know what – I’ll go with the 95%; you go with the one or two. Neither of us will be around when the planet fries anyway, so why should we give a damn about our grandchildren.

    As you say, there’s no convincing people who have an irrational and inflated sense of entitlement to gun ownership, and are oblivious to the damage they cause. As I said in another post, perhaps you should consider a move to the US, where they appreciate gun attitudes like yours.

    • anoneemoose

      “firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent”

      Note the word FIREARM. Replacements are still available to murderers.
      See:http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide/weapon.html

    • Sean

      Umm Monash, Hecctorville and the Hunt family. 2002,2011,2014

    • wombat_7777

      ROFL…the old “97% of scientists” appeal to authority thing again….actually,the figures were like 75 out 77 people surveyed, not 1000s of scientists as you claim.
      Dr John Christy in 2012 was able to show that using basic temperature readings that climate change had ceased for 17 years so far…… interestingly, the IPCC models were shown to be very very wrong.

    • vas

      Actually, I have seen and read this study you have quoted.

      The big difference is that I understand mathematics and statistics unlike you, that appears to be ignorant in this area. Probably due to your gun phobic attitude, you have swallowed hook, line and sinker the conclusions of what is a manipulated and dubious study that bears no resemblance to true representation of statistical facts.

      You have been thoroughly duped by a method of representation that has been regularly used by Pharmaceutical companies to promote drugs of dubious nature to an ignorant public. This method is also used by publishers that are desperate to get some recognition or trying to push their own agendas.

      I will explain so that even a simpleton may understand.

      First, the publishers of the study have selected a particular individual year – being 1995 and 2006. By doing this, no account of year to year spikes in data have been taken into account. This is actually considered as “bad science”.
      All statistics have year to year spikes, which is why graphical representation using a relevant scale is the only correct way of understanding what the data means.

      In the case of this study, they have compared 2.2 gun suicides per 100,000 to .8 gun suicides. Put another way it is comparing .00037% to .00015%. In other words, these are statistically INSIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES. The researchers knew this, so to make it sound really good to capture the attention of the vacuous minds out there, they represent the figures as a percentage of each other – which is how they come up with 65%.

      Unfortunately, to the gullible this sounds terrible. In reality they are comparing 0.8 deaths per 100,000 to 2.2 deaths per 100,000. It is no different than a drug company having a drug that helps 1 in 1000 people, then reformulate and get a result of 2 in 1000 and using this comparison to claim they have had a 100% improvement in results.

      The claim in the same article about there being no corresponding increase in other forms of suicides is also a manipulation of data and is in fact untrue.

      I suggest you look at the ABS stats on suicides – which shows the rate over the last 20 years as relatively unchanged with various up and down spikes yer to year.
      There is plenty of statistical evidence which shows that the suicide and murder rate has shifted to a change in method -not in numbers as people like you seem to regularly claim.

      I also suggest you look at the Australian Institute of Criminology site where there are numerous graphs that FULLY support the comments I have made previously. I could also cherry pick data and point out that there was actually a large spike in murder rates for several years IMMEDIATELY after the gun buy back, however not being ignorant, I fully realize that data spikes do happen and do not represent the true state of incidences.

      • jim

        My compliments on a well stated, clear and concise explanation.

    • ClintJCL

      People now define mass shooting as >=2 people. Regardless, it’s a complete cherry pick.

      Obvious Dodger is obviously dodging.

  • Athinker

    What on earth do socialist governments have to do with handgun crimes in Australia? And please show us how Pol Pot and Hitler were Socialist.

    • Rob

      Seriously? You’re asking with all seriousness how the leader of the Nazi – Nationalsozialismus – National SOCIALIST – party could be socialist? Really?

    • mulga mumblebrain

      Hard Right psychotics often make this lunatic claim.

      • Steve Merrette

        Yeah because facts are just so lunatic…

        • mulga mumblebrain

          Nomenclature is not destiny. I’m sure you claim to be a sapient being, for instance.

      • Blaine

        Hard left socialists often refuse to see truth. You’re a smart guy. Google it!

    • Wild West

      Hitler was the head of the NAZI party. As in Nationalsozialistische DeutscheArbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers’ Party).

      The nazis were socialists.

    • JpRAustin

      Gee, let’s begin with the Nazi party name: “National Socialist Party”

    • Gordon

      National Socialist Workers Party was the official name of the Nazi party. The govt taking guns away led to deaths in Gernany, Russia, Cambodia, China, etc. etc. How can you Aussies not see that? If you want to live in a police state where only the govt and crooks have guns, that is your problem. Americans will never give up our guns. If you don’t like it, stay in Austrailia.

      • Chris

        I find it difficult to accept lessons about guns from an American!!
        The number1 manufacturer and exporter of weapons in the world.
        And what makes you think that going to USA is what people want, how does this fit in the conversation?
        And one more thing, just because Hitler called his gang of murderets “socialists”, didn’t make him one!
        What political parties or groups or organizat

        • MichaelZWilliamson

          So, you would also not take lessons on cars from a car manufacturer???

          Herpaderp. Ignorance is strength!

      • Drew from Aus.

        “You Aussies.” lol. This is an Australian article, about Australian issues…….why are you even commenting here? Maybe stay back on your side of the pond, commenting on US articles, with your anti Gay, Anti marijuana, pro 2A stance.You seem to want folks to have freedom…to be just like you. Nothing else.
        Fix your own mess, before you try and sort ours, M’kay? Bye.

    • wombat_7777

      “Nazi” = “National Socialist”…..the name kinda gives it away, ….

    • mulga mumblebrain

      It’s interesting and chilling to see the Rightwing nut-jobs emerging, en masse, from beneath their rocks. Very bad times ahead.

      • Chris Thomas

        As opposed to the left wing nut jobs ?

      • MichaelZWilliamson

        I know, right? With facts and all.

        Though as a pro-choice, pro-marriage equality atheist, I’m not clear on how I’m a “rightwing nut-job.” Explain, please?

  • Athinker

    Jay Dubb – if you want this thread to be more than a “mine’s bigger than yours”, mud-slinging contest, you really need to explain why you can have a concealed weapon. Otherwise, you are simply proving that our gun laws stink.

    • wombat_7777

      So are you going to actually respond with an intelligent rebuttal, or just sling mud at people?

      • Athinker

        wombat_7777 – this is simple. If Jay Dubb can legally carry a concealed weapon, and he is neither military nor police, he is not in Australia. (If I’m wrong, he can explain it to us. I politely invited him to.) That is not mud slinging. It’s pointing out that he probably knows nothing about the situation here.

        • Jay Dubb

          You are wrong in your assumptions

          • Athinker

            So answer the questions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            Are you Australian?

            How are you allowed to carry?

            (And why must you use American slang for these matters?)

    • MichaelZWilliamson

      That he needs a license to exercise a right does in fact stink. Where are the licenses for computers?

      • Athinker

        What right?

        • Jay Dubb

          The natural right of a person to self defence (defense if you prefer)

  • Athinker

    Why? What/who are you planning on shooting?

    • wombat_7777

      Is legal game hunting of animals a crime?

      • Athinker

        No. In fact I support it.

        • wombat_7777

          So why are you so stridently anti-gun then?

          I’m struggling to understand if you are fine with hunting with a firearm, why the bolshi attitude toward guns in general? This is not a wind up, i’m genuinely interested.

    • Don

      Anyone that tries to harm us. Simple.

      • Athinker

        Ah Don, another paranoid American. Sad.

    • wombat_7777

      No one. Legal hunting is absolutely fine.

  • Athinker

    Stupid argument. Our exposure to cars is much higher than our exposure to guns. And the wise folk among us want both numbers to reduce anyway.

    • Garavella Yk

      our exposure to guns used to be greater than to cars and indeed at the time nobody batted an eye.

  • Bah, humbug

    Happiness is a warm gun for you, Jay? “Carry” in public, do you? Compensation issues, perhaps. I hope you don’t live anywhere near me.

    • Garavella Yk

      now, now, that’s uncalled for.
      if you don’t have arguments, you can just pretend to be a philosopher

  • anoneemoose

    It is literally physically not possible to make every gun traceable.

    As for guns being stolen, if someone steals a car and crash into a person, who is responsible for the crash?

    • hanspy

      No? Than you can’t produce guns. POINT. Every car is registered and most cars today can be traced easily. And in near future they are traceable in seconds. And we are not talking about cars but guns. And as long the owner not can say how or why he is NOT responsible , he will have a hard time. You want to play with deadly weapons, than proof you’re able to do so. Excuses will not be accepted. You do not want people get shot. Stop making and owning the weapons that is shooting them. What is the point from owning a gun? Being stronger than the other? But you want the other to have guns by not wanting to have a decent registration? Decent protection against abuse?.
      When everybody is having guns ,where is the advantage? Bigger gun? More guns? A Tank in your front and back garden?

      • Garavella Yk

        So if I slip a gun in your backpack, you should be thrown in jail forever because you “not can say how you’re NOT responsible” (your wording)?
        This seems like a good way to destroy innocent peoples lives.

  • robertg222

    First mistake was thinking that gun control was going to solve any problem. Time to end the restrictions on the law abiding.

    • Athinker

      There’s no evidence it was a mistake here in Australia.

      • Garavella Yk

        this very article shows it was a mistake.
        you took the guns from people and the criminals still got more.

  • Rob

    With all the effort and expenditure in chasing people around and tormenting them for having guns and/or ammo without “approval,” has the net result justified it?

    Doubtful. Cost to benefit, it applies.

    • Athinker

      A Texan, who thinks he knows how things work in Australia. But doesn’t.

      • Garavella Yk

        he’s not wrong

  • TJHooker

    You guys do realize mass shootings make up a fraction of a % of gun related deaths? They garner the most attention but most are people shooting people they know.

  • David Lever

    The reality of gun control is simply this… Guns can be manufactured by any competent machinist, ammunition can be improvised or manufactured likewise. The Pathan tribesmen in Pershawar copied firearms captured from foreign armies for hundreds of years; up to and including fully automatic AK 47’s some manufactured on foot operated drills and lathes. Taking guns away from law abiding people, is like preventing sober people from owning cars to prevent drunk driving. History has taught us that the only solution to stopping a bad people who are armed, is for good people to be so armed. Illegal gun manufacturers are having a field day keeping up the supply, and criminals love it when their victims are unarmed, it makes their activity much less dangerous for them.

    • Athinker

      David Lever – If “History has taught us that the only solution to stopping a bad people who are armed, is for good people to be so armed”, why does the USA, with such a high level of private gun ownership, still have so many mass shootings?

      • Garavella Yk

        because those mass shootings happen in gun free zones where good people obey the rules and don’t carry.

      • Tarzipan

        Tell me the base rate of homicides in the US compared to other countries.
        You still don’t get the point made elsewhere in this thread that 10 people killed in one spot are no more dead than 10 people killed in 10 separate locations.

      • David Lever

        Because most social gun free zones forbid the good to be armed

  • Personal Protection

    It’s exactly what happened when the US outlawed alcohol and you see the same with drugs. Hopefully the US is smart enough to never let the bastards get their guns for any reason and will eradicate all those who try long before confiscation is implemented. Also, understand this is exactly how all the criminals get their guns too. They do not go to a gun store to buy them and they sure as hell don’t take a test, get finger printed, a DOJ background check and wait ten days. Are you America’s really that stupid.

    • Athinker

      Personal Protection – are you truly serious when you say “Hopefully the US is smart enough to never let the bastards get their guns for any reason and will eradicate all those who try…”?

      Eradicate? You disgust me.

      • Protect_OUR_Constitution

        What justice/punishment would you, Athinker, deem appropriate for our TREACHEROUS DOMESTIC ENEMIES actively working to overthrow our VERY CONSTITUTION AND RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, that they SWORE AN OATH to UPHOLD?

        Part of “the Oath”;
        “…support and defend the Constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic…”
        ——————————
        The ONLY disgusting thing I can see, is allowing them to succeed, and not publicly(on TV) punishing their treason.

  • kevin777

    Allow law abiding Australian citizens to carry a gun. Gun contorl only keeps guns out of the good folks hands.

    • Athinker

      That is simply wrong. Gun control limits the access of everybody to deadly weapons.

      • Garavella Yk

        not by the data in this article.
        gun control only limits law abiding access.
        the others don’t care.

  • Paul Irwin

    My comments generally reflect a professional experience here in Canada, and knowlwdge of internatiinal related law enforcement and laws in the subject area. Prohibition and restriction has fueled illegal spill over activities of many types, without limitation, here and elsewhere; ie. drugs, theft, home invasion, sex trade, human trafficking. It did so also with alcohol decades ago as an historic example, and similar to some so called soft drugs. The involvement of overwhelmingly law abiding authorized and vetted persons in black market crime is at minimum statistically and actually insignificant. Thefts, despite secure storage requirements, have taken place, some directly connected to government registry security flaws and/or attack. The most significant impact on targeted murder suicide events has been community involvement and communications, and improvements in mental health care services and reducing the associated stigma. They have however taken place despite implemented controls. We can only losely claim here in Canada that our improved programs of training and safety have reduced the risks related to injury in the handling of firearms, which were small, but are now smaller. There is far more, however we have found our funding directed at controls and not the criminal element and public services to have been immensely misdirected.

    CFP/RCMP

  • Jeff King

    Prohibition just doesn’t work. And every legitimate study has proven this. The problem is the rabid left just ignore facts or even make up their own when the truth doesn’t match their ideology. There have been dozens of studies by law enforcement groups, universities and other government groups such as the CDC. All of these have shown that gun laws do not affect gun violence. So what does the far left do? They ignore actual science and instead quote newspaper “studies”. Then other “news” groups quote the first news group and then then build on each other as support. All the while conveniently forgetting the real science. When are we going to stop allowing ideology to trump science?

  • rico567

    “Control, control, control,” a word used a lot in that article. It never works. People in other countries love to scream about our guns here in the U.S.— but most of the murders go on in a few city blocks in 6 or 7 large cities. People think of the political left and right, but Robert A. Heinlein was correct: “Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” — Robert A. Heinlein

  • v1adg

    God people are ignorant. Are you not aware on how many incidents concealed carry folks have saved lives?

    • mulga mumblebrain

      Another Yank freak infesting our debate.

      • Protect_OUR_Constitution

        You’re just angry the Yank is not a socialist(as in nazi, do a search).

  • Franivelius

    Release guns to honest citizens!

    • Athinker

      No.

  • mulga mumblebrain

    Good to see, yet again, that the gun-freaks are the lowest type of hard Right nut-cases.

  • USA1963

    As an American reading this I am glad I don’t live down under. You give up your freedoms much to easily.

    • Don

      Ditto, I can’t believe some of these posts. As some wise man here once said, gun control laws are akin to having yourself castrated because your neighbors keep having kids. Insanity.

      • Athinker

        Don – where is “here”?

    • Athinker

      I’m curious USA1963, who drew your attention to this thread?

      BTW, if you think it’s good to carry a concealed weapon, I don’t want you in Australia.

      • Tarzipan

        These days a link can be made that takes you to an article by a publication based on the other side of the world. On any topic, let’s say it’s gun rights, someone can post a link to an Australian article even though the forum is American or Canadian or whatever, and vice versa.
        It’s no great mystery.
        I might just as well ask how you found your way here.

        • Athinker

          That would simply make you look silly.

          • But just as silly as you constantly asking people how they found this article.

    • Chris Thomas

      The laws in there current form were opposed by many but they were still the minority. The states that refused to comply such as Tasmania had funding withheld until they complied.

  • Will Billy

    Ha Ha Ha, stupid. I could have told you that was coming. If we ban guns criminals will obey the law, sure Stupid keep telling yourself that. All Rainbows, Unicorns and Crime in Australia. That’s what you get for listening to Politicians.

    • Athinker

      Another American.

      Ever been to Australia?

  • J Gary Giron

    Government only disarms law abiding citizens……..government prefers unarmed serfs…

    • Athinker

      Yet another American who has never commented on an Australian topic before. The NRA forum flooding tactic in operation.

  • Athinker

    Justavet appears to be yet another American making his first and only comment on an Australian topic. The NRA’s forum flooding tactics are obvious.

    • Garavella Yk

      but he’s quite reasonable, don’t you think?

    • mulga mumblebrain

      An evil organisation, amongst whose odious achievements was sabotaging gun laws in Brazil. Why can’t these Yanks ever mind their own psychotic business?

    • Justavet

      You are no more a thinker than I am an astronaut. The question was why would someone want a firearm. I told you and you don’t like the answer. Too bad!

  • Athinker

    heWraith – Do you live in Australia? Have you ever been to Australia?

    • Garavella Yk

      do you think those people (in the article) caught carrying guns were just strolling around? They were either going to or coming from no good.

  • wombat_7777

    Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

  • Athinker

    Is The New Daily in a position to do anything about the flooding of this Australian topic by American gun lovers? The NRA must think we all want Australia to be like America.

    • Garavella Yk

      you do but you’re too wimpy to do anything about it.

    • Tarzipan

      Maybe also flooded with people working for gun control organisations?

  • Steve Merrette

    Yeah, call for the police so they can track your phone to find your dead corpse to photograph…

    • mulga mumblebrain

      Another Yank.

      • Tarzipan

        Does the poster’s nationality affect their logic in some way you’d care to share with the rest of us?

  • Barry

    I’ve been researching Australia’s gun laws. Good grief.

    The new Nerf gun (Nerf Rival) is banned in your country. This is a toy appropriate for an 8 year old.

    I didn’t realize you were so delicate. Maybe, just maybe, you have gone just a tiny bit too far on the liberty vs. safety spectrum? 🙂

    • wombat_7777

      Barry, quite simply the Left of politics here ( or in the USA you’d call them “Liberals” ) has convinced people of the following fallacies:

      – That guns are evil
      – That only the State can protect you
      – That everyone should be disarmed ( except criminals it seems….make of that what you will )
      – That despite the fact that more armed people create less violent crime is ignored ( see the latest gun/crime study from Harvard Uni )
      – That a disarmed population is a good population
      – That history can teach us nothing, except that bits of it about how Socialists disarm populations then kill a lot of them *becasue* they are disarmed , seems to be ignored.

      I think its also worth looking at the UN with its twisted barrel statue outside it to see the planned intent – Australia is a “test bench” for this.

      A couple of uncomfortable facts for the gun grabbers :

      – An Australian Premier Unsworth predicted with eerie accuracy 8 years before ( As recorded in the Parliament of Australia Hansard in 1996 ) that we would need a massacre in Tasmania to bring in uniform gun laws in australia.
      – That the gun/crime studies continuously show more guns = less violent crime
      – That banning guns will mean people willl just use knives to kill others
      – That Martin Bryant who ( allegedly ) gunned down many people in Tasmania in the Port Arthur massacre in 1996 had a shot/kill ratio of a seasoned military marksman, despite him having very low IQ and no known tactical training.

      Make of that what you will.

      • Athinker

        Ah, a Bryant conspiracy theorist. There’s always one comes out of the woodwork.

        Who shot JFK?

        Did NASA go to the moon?

      • Tarzipan

        Thanks for belling the cat and bringing up the Port Arthur massacre and the huge array of suspicious things about it.
        One little thing among many is the mortuary truck that was used only once at Port Arthur and then advertised for sale on the internet.
        They didn’t need it before, they didn’t need it since, so they must have been clairvoyant to know they needed it for the one time at Port Arthur.
        NotAthinker needs to examine things like this before talking about Bryant conspiracy theorists.

    • Athinker

      Deleicate, eh? Are you saying that people with guns think they are tough?

      Thought so.

      • Barry

        People with Nerf guns. 🙂

        Your government is treating you like an overprotected child, not a free adult.

      • Garavella Yk

        I must admit, when obvious toys are prohibited something’s rotten in Australia.

  • Athinker

    Prove it.

    • Protect_OUR_Constitution

      Well?
      Gonna answer?
      Or avoid AGAIN?

      “Now YOU PROVE how banning LAW ABIDING NON VIOLENT PEOPLE (like the
      Aussies above), from keeping guns as self defense tools, curtails violence and murder.

      I will be using worldwide refs and data to rebut.”

  • Blaine

    Gun prohibitions don’t work any better than any oher forms of prohibition. All they do is create criminals. But the problem is deeper than that. Fix the poverty problem and the drug problem and the gun problems will go away.

    • Athinker

      This one’s not American. He’s Canadian. But still knows nothing about Australia.

      I asked a few now who invited them here. No answer yet.

    • Athinker

      Canadian gun nut. Never shown any interest in an Australian discussion before. Obviously an expert on the the firearms situation here.

      I wouldn’t have the gall to comment on Canadian gun legislation. Who the hell do these people think they are?

      • Blaine

        Your anti American bias is leaking out. You got a little bit on a Canadian. As to who invited any of us here, that’s not how it works. The Internet knows no borders. Came up on the news feed. BTW I would not consider myself a gun nut as much as a sport shooting enthusiast. I don’t golf you see. We find the Australian firearms situation quite interesting because the same blind and fearful liberal bias that made your government start penalizing law abiding citizens to address criminals is trending in Canada. So naturally we are looking to see how it’s going for you. Your efforts to limit discussion by “outsiders” aren’t working btw.

        • Athinker

          Blaine – I welcome your thoughts, but do learn more about the reality here, and stick to better logic.

  • mulga mumblebrain

    All the inadequates have the same chorus. Ask one question about the nature of Nazism and what the Nazis did to real socialists, and they freak right out.

  • mulga mumblebrain

    In what country do you reside?

    • Justavet

      The US of A, and damn proud of it.

  • mulga mumblebrain

    Answer the question, smarty-pants.

    • Jay Dubb

      I think it has already been answered by plenty on here, my comment was aimed (ha ha) at atinker who has made assumptions that are not correct.

  • Athinker

    Don’t own a gun. Have used one. On a range on a Come and Try Day. Found it as boring as bat poo.

    But I don’t see the relevance of the questions.

  • Athinker

    I don’t want a country full of self appointed vigilantes.

    • Garavella Yk

      but you could use one when in danger

    • Protect_OUR_Constitution

      Yeah, better you cower in fear, BEND OVER and BEG for mercy, huh.
      You HYPOCRITICALLY complain about US talking about your country, but then you LIE about OURS?
      RESEARCH, (not)Athinker, PLEASE!

  • Brett Nortje

    Goes further than that. Truly Internationalist. I’ll bet if you checked Lee and Alper’s passports you’ll find entry stamps to South Africa because they’re sticking their noses in there too. They’re busybodies.

  • Brett Nortje

    Wasn’t always so. But murder has always been much lower.

  • David Bickenson

    A disarmed population is a disenfranchised population.

  • David Bickenson

    What you call yourself has nothing to do with hat you actually are!

    • Drawer22

      @David Bickenson – True enough! Today’s American “progressives” are actually regressive, repressive, and oppressive ─ and what they call “common sense,” ain’t!

      De Oppresso Liber

  • Scrapple

    The existence of the article is being reported on in the United States and circulated on twitter. That’s how I found out about it. People in the US who want gun control hold up Australia as the shining example of how it should be done. This information stands as a strong contradiction to that narrative.

    • Athinker

      No it doesn’t.

      A correlation is not the same as a causation. Otherwise, you could argue that to stop global warming I need to become a pirate. See;

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikaandersen/2012/03/23/true-fact-the-lack-of-pirates-is-causing-global-warming/

      But thank you Scrapple for sharing with us how a group of people who were already certain about something managed to misuse some data to mistakenly reinforce their views.

      • Garavella Yk

        Nobody said the illegal gun increase is caused by the buybacks but rather that the buybacks didn’t work or else there we wouldn’t have the increase.
        Remember how they justified the confiscation compulsory buybacks?

        • Athinker

          You haven’t understood my post.

  • David Bickenson

    Any party that calls itself “socialist” wishes to have total control of every aspect of people’s lives. Rather like a fascist party eh? “We are doing this because it is best for the majority of people.” i.e. It is the policy most likely to reduce the population to the lowest common denominator – all poor. Even the Chinese have had to admit that giving people the opportunity to guide their own lives/resources is a much better option for creating wealth – they are now the biggest economy in the world having surpassed the US.
    As for firearms – socialism implies total control, ergo socialists will take your guns away.

    • Athinker

      David, your first sentence is absolutely ridiculous. Lost me from that point on.

      • David Bickenson

        You don’t understand the modern corruption of the term “socialist”. Look at every self-styled socialist government and then continue to say that socialism does not imply control.

        • Athinker

          David – please believe me. The Howard government, the one that brought in this legislation, was NOT a socialist government by any definition of that word. John Howard was very good friends with George W Bush.

          • Protect_OUR_Constitution

            That figures!

  • Athinker

    Don – come to Australia. You’ll feel much safer here because so few people have guns. You won’t need yours. That’ll save you money too.

  • Garavella Yk

    what are you going to do when one of them “baddies” points a gun at you?

  • anoneemoose

    I don’t think you understood my post. In Australia, the term “genuine reason” has legal implications in regards to gun ownership. In other words, if Jay Dubb was Australian, he does not carry a gun because of anti stereotypes such as “rough and tough”, but because he has a more than legitimate reason to own the gun.

    I’m very pro-gun. In fact I donated to the Hollis v Holder case. (now known as Hollis v Lynch)

  • Donald Layne

    “When guns are outlawed, only Outlaws will have guns.” I often see that called a “fallacy” in liberal circles. Now I have a response for them…”Australia!”. But seriously, when firearms are banned, are criminals going to roll over and start obeying the law? Banning firearms disarms law abiding citizens, and leaves them at the mercy of criminals who do not obey the law. I’m just sayin’…

  • jim

    And what part of this is surprising?

  • John

    The fact reminds that John Howard’s decision on buying back gun is one of the most popular and supported move that any PM has done and supported by both sides of parliament . You gun nutters amaze me never see you commenting here but soon as a story about guns come out all you gun nuttier come out of the woodwork and try to hijack the conversation with your false figures conspiracies etc do you all email each other. No matter what media it is if it a firearms story it is always the same story hijacked by a loud minority who represent no one but a fringe element.

    • Protect_OUR_Constitution

      Calling names, insulting, and making false statements is a common hoplophobe tactic in the U.S.
      They make many outlandish claims but rarely offer links to factual studies or verifiable stats.
      Please expose the “false figures” you claimed.

  • David Bickenson

    I know bugger all about Australian politicians but I’m pretty certain that they are much like any other politicians anywhere in the world – control freaks who think they know best and “have a mandate”!

  • Athinker

    It’s a lot easier to kill someone with a gun than most other ways. And it’s what guns were invented for, anyway.

    • Protect_OUR_Constitution

      True.
      Law abiding, non violent women, children, cripples, and old folks need an upper hand against violent thugs intent on abusing/raping/murdering.

      Why do you seem to want THEM to be defenseless VICTIMS?

      • Athinker

        I don’t want them to be victims of misuse of an overabunce of guns.

  • Athinker

    Why? So we can have another Port Arthur? Or Hoddle Street?

    Both done with legal firearms.

    • Timmae

      Funny how a country, first established as a prison colony, now takes guns away from law abiding citizens.

      • Athinker

        Funny how irrational gun lovers keep spouting NRA propaganda, rather than responding to what other posters actually say. Want to try again?

        • Protect_OUR_Constitution

          So, PLEASE RESPOND.

    • Protect_OUR_Constitution

      Why not consider CRIMINAL CONTROL over gun control?

  • Athinker

    I have made the judgement that the risk and costs of owning firearms, combined with the chance of them ever actually helping in a dangerous situation, are simply not worth the trouble.

    • Protect_OUR_Constitution

      YOU “made the judgement” for YOU.
      What exactly gives YOU the right to make that judgment for ME?
      Or anyone else who’s judgment is different?

  • Protect_OUR_Constitution

    Is there a reason my comments are not showing up?

    Why do I keep getting;

    Hold on, this is waiting to be approved by The New Daily.

  • Athinker

    Yes.

    • Protect_OUR_Constitution

      BEAUTIFUL too, inside and out.
      Common sensical, independent, Angels, I think.

  • Protect_OUR_Constitution

    Never said I was, and openly stated so.
    Yet you refuse to answer;
    WHAT EXACTLY GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO “MAKE A JUDGEMENT” FOR ANYONE ELSE?

    Are you trying to claim all Australia agrees with your “judgement”?

    • Athinker

      No. That would be stupid. (But you did suggest it!) But a strong majority agrees with me.

      • Protect_OUR_Constitution

        Research shows your majority agreement true, and IT IS YOUR country, but I’ll take heart. It took only 3% of our Colonies to eject the King when he demanded our guns.
        ————————————–
        Instead of returning your “oh so witty” insult, I’ll just note how mind numbing it must be for you, to be a mere sheep, wandering the herd, subservient to your betters.
        Simple enough for your simple mind, afraid and demanding to NOT be in control of your own destiny, much less your own freedoms.
        After all, your majority has judged YOU, and you agree.
        You are far too weak minded, and completely unworthy of being entrusted with deciding on your own natural Right of self defense.
        I would say, “as is your Right”, but sheep and serfs have NO Rights.

        We Yanks bow and scrape to no-one’s opinion, majority or not. We think and act independently, coming together as needed.
        As did my Aussie Brothers, the ‘Roo Boys, from long ago.
        The Warriors, not the band.

        I’m now beginning to see our biggest differences and learn, (with your help, thank you very much), what the NEW MAJORITY of Australians believe.
        It deeply pains me.

        YOUR majority is NOT the Australian majority I loved, honored, admired and respected from “the old days” , of strong and free thinking independent men and women. Those Aussies willing to defend themselves and others at “the drop of a hat”(yeah, we “hooked & ducked”, partied, and I was “taught” by those (formerly) proud Aussies.
        I’ll bet your kind(gun haters) “eliminated” them, they NEVER would surrender their arms, nor leave Australia.
        Ideologues murdering to grab guns, who would’ve thought?

        I’ll tip a few to their memory, and close with this quote my Aussie Brothers enjoyed;
        ”He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.”

        They would quote your sheep majority today;
        “Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
        May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

  • Protect_OUR_Constitution

    Athinker

    wombat_7777

    7 days ago

    I don’t want a country full of self appointed vigilantes.

    • Athinker

      That’s not about your country.

      Paranoia on display?

      • Protect_OUR_Constitution

        Backpedal much?

        Paranoia is PERFECT situational awareness.
        As opposed to your head in a hole.(ostrich?)

        • Athinker

          I am not backpedalling. Nor will I throw insults. This topic demands rational discussion.

  • Timmae

    Surely the little people did not arm the Authorities correctly. The little people must also surrender their privacy rights to the Authorities. This will remove the ‘hand-cuffed’ Authorities that would otherwise get their job done.

    • Athinker

      I don’t understand.

      • Protect_OUR_Constitution

        Obviously.

  • Athinker

    Here in Australia we feel differently about guns.

    Perhaps you could come here and find out why. We love visitors.

    • Donald Layne

      It is on my bucket list. Both Australia and New Zealand. Here’s hoping.

  • Protect_OUR_Constitution

    First, my compliments and thanks to Australians, you guys are FAR more civil than the U.S. hoplophobes.

    Yet, as I go through the comments, trying to understand and learn from the Australian opinion and mindset, I note that ONLY the hoplophobe gun grabbers/haters illogically start 99.999% of the insults, same as in the U.S.

    Since experience and common sense tells us childish minds throw insults out of frustration of running out of logical statements, and at being defeated with unrelenting FACTS and common sense deductions, I can only hope those insulters will research these articles in their own best interests, and honestly appraise their own mental states, and why they truly hold their opinions;

    Raging Against Self Defense: A psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality
    http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm
    and;
    The Seven Varieties of Gun Control Advocate
    http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/jp_seven.htm

  • Athinker

    I don’t expect to encounter a bad guy with a gun. That’s the advantage of having so few guns in the country.

  • Athinker

    Oh FFS, drop the emotional “mothers and children” crap. That’s clearly intended to inhibit rational discussion. The mothers of Australia are happy with the country’s gun policy.

  • Athinker

    Correct. Australia does not have freedom of speech. But that’s not the issue here. The owners of any website in any country have the legal and practical right decide what appears on their website.

    And there’s that other weird American thing. Invoking a god.

  • Athinker

    Big words don’t impress me.

  • Athinker

    Natural rights?

    ROTFLMAO

  • Athinker

    Yes, I have been to the USA.

    • Protect_OUR_Constitution

      Where? When?
      Commiefornia?
      New York city?
      A few day tourist?
      Did you live with any REAL people, or just the “plastics”?

  • Athinker

    1) Yes. 2) Yes. 3) I have no idea what you’re talking about.

    But I’m quite used to Americans not understanding the way Australians speak English. Maybe this is just another misunderstanding.

    • Protect_OUR_Constitution

      I truly hope I’ve misinterpreted your words, and look forward to your correction.
      I interpreted your words above,
      “…so yes, anyone whose freedom has been won in Australia with the help of firearms should be returned to bondage.”,

      as meaning;
      you and your kids, via your ancestors, and all Aussies,
      winning their freedom from Britain, and
      defending their freedom in WW2(and other wars/conflicts), and those benefiting their freedom won for them,
      through the use of firearms,
      should all be put in chains(bondage).

    • Protect_OUR_Constitution

      I take it by your silence, I did NOT misinterpret, and that you DO prefer chains on your fellow Aussies.
      Duuuuuude!

  • Athinker

    No. That didn’t prove Jay Dubb’s point.

    • Protect_OUR_Constitution

      Yes, it does.
      Just because YOU fail to read(AGAIN) the articles and deny, does NOT prove your claim.

      Please read, then explain what are your reasons for your denials.

  • Athinker

    Yes, some thugs will, but there really aren’t all that many of them around.

    • Protect_OUR_Constitution

      How many armed violent thugs intent on abusing (and worse) your defenseless law abiding, non violent family, while you are forced to submit, do you find acceptable?

  • Athinker

    The vast majority of Australians DO NOT believe they are “being forced to kowtow to gov’t bureaucrats’ opinions over your own”.

    • Protect_OUR_Constitution

      Perhaps they are “sleeping”(not aware) due the the no free speech allowed “law”?
      Or maybe due to the democratic majority’s emotional bleatings overpowering the critical thinking (IMO) minority’s voice?

      Or “brainwashed” due to the above’s clamor?
      ———————————-
      Even discounting the non Aussies, according to the “up-votes” for pro Rights here, your vast majority is dwindling.

  • Athinker

    I believe in neither mugging nor any god.

    • Protect_OUR_Constitution

      A little off topic, but connected to murders;
      Belief in Christianity’s God is the only reason some people are allowed to live.
      In other words, “Thou shalt not murder” is obeyed.

      If there is no God, why not act on our baser instincts, right?

      • Athinker

        Completely off-topic.

        But I will simply say, non-Christians can be good people. Christians can be bad people. The god thing doesn’t seem to be the deciding factor.

  • Athinker

    You are the only person here to have mentioned Philip Alpers. I’ve never heard of him. Yet you write as if everyone knows who he is.

    Obsession?

    • Jay Dubb

      Well he gets a mention in the original article, did you read it at all?

    • Protect_OUR_Constitution

      Have you read the article yet?

    • Jay Dubb

      And I mentioned him in my first comment on the article. Did you read it yet tinker?

  • Protect_OUR_Constitution

    How cute.
    Need your blankie?
    Sleepytime now, Athinker.
    Maybe when your sleep restored brain is at full capacity, you can reattempt rational discussion?
    ————————————
    Silly me, did I misunderstand?
    Perhaps factual, logical convo, and researching for truth bores you?
    Better to just watch your “soaps”(mindless pablum on TV), and parrot your bigotry and fear?

  • PavePusher

    Well, Australia’s experiment with Fascism seems to be progressing nicely….

    • Athinker

      Fascism?

      LOL.

      What a silly post.

  • Jay Dubb

    Well if you are ever in a position where you or your loved ones lives are threatened you can see how that balance works for you (I hope you are never in that situation). Personally I like to be prepared and have tools and materials at hand to cope with a variety of circumstances as most people do.

  • Ron

    Stop banning guns for law-abiding citizens. Duh. Stupid people.

    Require every head of household to own at least one semi-automatic firearm for home- and self-defense, and to be trained and proficient with it. Provide firearms training as part of the public school curriculum.

    An armed and trained citizenry is a safe citizenry. It’s the one thing violent criminals fear the most.

  • Ron

    Faced with the facts, the author STILL refuses to admit the obvious: gun control does NOTHING to curb gun violence.

    “Gun enthusiasts are quite right when they say guns don’t kill – it’s the bullets that kill”
    FALSE. Neither guns nor bullets kill people. They are just tools. People are the killers. People with murder and violence in their hearts will not be deterred from carrying out those atrocities, no matter which laws are passed. Rendering law-abiding citizens helpless to defend themselves against violence, accomplishes nothing except to make more victims of law-abiding citizens. Their blood is on the hands of those who passed ridiculous gun-control laws, and those who elected them and supported those measures.

    “For many years we just focused on the guns and ignored the ammunition that was lying around – now people are starting to realise that ammunition control is just as important.”
    FALSE. Neither gun control nor ammunition control will stop bad guys from getting guns and ammunition. Why? Because bad guys don’t care about laws. Rendering law-abiding citizens defenseless, just makes more victims. Their blood is on YOUR hands. It also creates a black market, and black markets are ALWAYS rife with violence.

    Doubling down on failed policies is a sure-fire way to reap more of the same predictable results. Give law-abiding citizens their guns back, and get the government OUT of people’s PRIVATE BUSINESS with regard to how they choose to defend themselves from violence.

  • Jack Barnes

    Clearly you don’t know much about firearms law in the USA or you would know the federal government doesn’t make these laws they are all state based. Each of the 50 states has seperate and unique laws for the ownership of firearms and control of ammunition.

Try us on tablet & mobile