Dave,
Yeah I know that but when I worked in the security industry we were always allowed to supply armed guards to protect property, but definately not life. I cant for the life of me remember why that was, maybe a licensing issue??
Cheers...
Con

Yep, me too. You could work as a CPP agent, but only with non-lethal tools.

Licensing and OH&S issues.

PC is great, isn't it?

Gentlemen, if I might have my two-pennorth. it looks as though your Howard government is roughly the same as our Blair govt i.e. they are all of questionable parentage.
Throughout the thread it has been pointed out that new firearms legislation has come in on the back of firearms incidents/massacres and I believe someone said they were just waiting for the next installment so the govt had a reason to totally ban pistols. As many of you will be aware that has already happened to us Brits. We now have no centrefire s/a rifles no pistols no s/a shotguns over 3shot (except on FAC with good reason). We are just waiting for the next installment too as the government see the right to bear arms as a privilege not a right (someone mentioned subject instead of citizen)
Like you we have no unified voice (or if we do they are too nice for our good) and legislation s slowly piling up against us.
The most efficient firearms propaganda machine on the planet is the NRA in America. Say what you like about either it or the yanks but spank my butt with a porcupine it does a fine job of keeping all manner of guns within the reach of most US citizens. Their weapons? Popularity, wealth, and public profile. Which boils down to effective communication with the public and politicians and a strong line when rights are threatened. Politicians will always try and gain dominion over subjects rather than trying to help citizens as 'power corrupts but absolut power corrupts absolutely' I have no faith in politicians but an effective voice for shooters might, just might keep them off your backs.
Essentially put your money where your mouths are and get a body thats good at publicity good at dealing with politicians and has the iron fist inside the velvet glove when it all comes on top.
Cheers fellas

quote:

Originally posted by Bushchook:
TJ ,
Shooting a criminal who breaks into your house gets you sent straight to jail here . Don't pass go , don't collect $200 .

[QUOTE]Originally posted by NitroX
Bullshit. May be different between some states but many states allow reasonable force judged by the person (ie the home owner) to be used to protect themselves, their family AND their property.
QUOTE]

Nitro ,
So is that a qualified "bullshit" then ?
Shoot someone in W.A. and you'll be charged .Can't recall a recent case where it was otherwise .This is what I was referring to when I wrote "sent straight to jail".I wasn't meaning literally .
Police even charged the (now) head of the state opposition a year or so ago when he accidentally shot his son in the hand .

I did a quick internet search on gun control.
Here's a couple interesting sites.
Dr. John R. Lott jr, has written a few books on the subject.

Gunsandcrime.com from Australia, has some interesting info.

The Canadian site, FrasierInstitute has the following quotes....
"past six years, the overall rate of violent crime in Australia has been on the rise-for example, Armed robberies have jumped 106% nationwide"
" the homicide rate in the US has fallen 42% since 1997"
" Disarming the public has not reduced the violent criminal activity in any country in this study."
Lots of info out there.

quote:

Originally posted by Bushchook:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bushchook:
TJ ,
Shooting a criminal who breaks into your house gets you sent straight to jail here . Don't pass go , don't collect $200 .

quote:

Originally posted by NitroX
Bullshit. May be different between some states but many states allow reasonable force judged by the person (ie the home owner) to be used to protect themselves, their family AND their property.
QUOTE]

Nitro ,
So is that a qualified "bullshit" then ?

Yes.

I got this link from another hnting forum http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19000094-421,00.html

quote:

Yeah I know that but when I worked in the security industry we were always allowed to supply armed guards to protect property, but definately not life.

I did a stint of several years as an armed guard and firearms instructor with Brambles Armoured cars. Throughout my basic training and later during continuation training it was always made clear that the guns we carried were only to protect our lives and the lives of the public around us.


When confronted by professional hold-up men, who only wanted the cash, we were to hand it over without argument. The professionals, except the nutters, were only interested in getting the cash and then putting as much distance between us as they could and didn't represent much of a threat to life.

The danger was when confronted by an amateur, particularly a druggie, because they were so volatile and unpredicatable and it was because of them that we were armed.

However, let me repeat that ALL of the training with firearms was to protect LIFE - not property.

Thanks Bwana,
I must have got it wrong. We used to get calls from people wanting "protection" due to various circumstances and naturally could not supply a guard. But jewellery stores, banks, aircraft etc ... almost always wanted armed guards which we did supply.
Cheers...
Con

TJ,

Thanks for the stats! I had a look around the net too, but mostly found information used by vigourously pro and anti gun groups - in other words manipulated and slanted stats that conseqeuntly neither prove nor disprove anything to do with crime and guns. You mention that "disarming the public has not reduced the crime rate" (in the States?). In Australia - probably because privately owned guns were not used, for the most part, in connection with crime - as criminals or victims, I would posit the rise in crime has to do with some other factors. Factors that don't fit easily into pro or anti gun propoganda. The world's a complex place.

You'll find people on this forum who do think it's OK to use firearms to defend hearth and home - one thing is for sure though - using that as a justification for privately held arms in Australia will ensure we lose them very, very quickly. Unfortunately in Aus the debate is not about 'rights', but 'responsibilities'. Any position that we take as firearm owners that makes us seem irresponsible is very, very quickly jumped on by politicians...

Cheers!

i have never felt the need to post before and am now going too feel the wrath of most members here. but feel i have to add my 2 cents worth.
the leading cause of domestic death in usa?guns
the very fact that ppl on here talk about guns on the bedside table it is no wonder.

tj was banging on about protecting family and shooting intruders,this attitude has lead them and their leaders into various "wars" and we all know how well they have gone..
lets face it the usa is where the powers that be have or are trying too bring in retropective legislation immunising gun co's from lawsuits
so one wonders where the american pollies ideals lie ,it is not with the people they pretend to represent.
the idea that guns in a citizens hand prevent violent crime is an absolute joke...in fact the opposite is true have a look at death stats from from usa and compare to japan,oz and england.

quote:

Originally posted by hammer39:
i have never felt the need to post before and am now going too feel the wrath of most members here. but feel i have to add my 2 cents worth.
the leading cause of domestic death in usa?guns
the very fact that ppl on here talk about guns on the bedside table it is no wonder.

tj was banging on about protecting family and shooting intruders,this attitude has lead them and their leaders into various "wars" and we all know how well they have gone..
lets face it the usa is where the powers that be have or are trying too bring in retropective legislation immunising gun co's from lawsuits
so one wonders where the american pollies ideals lie ,it is not with the people they pretend to represent.
the idea that guns in a citizens hand prevent violent crime is an absolute joke...in fact the opposite is true have a look at death stats from from usa and compare to japan,oz and england.

Hammer39,

"Interesting" first post.

Do you have any statistics to back up this claim:

"the leading cause of domestic death in usa? guns"

Also why should a manufacturer of a product be liable for mis-use or negligent use?

ie "trying too bring in retropective legislation immunising gun co's from lawsuits"

To me that is just a tool/strategy the anti's are trying to use to bring up gun control (read banning) of domestic ownership of firearms in the USA.

One thing I have learned about the USA is that the high incidence of deaths from firearms is often geographically the opposite from the areas of high LEGAL and EASE of ownership of firearms. The areas of higher firearm death rates usually correspond geographically with higher ethnic population demographics and poorer socio-economic classes. Often interestingly with very tough gun laws in those areas.

hammer:
You might take the time to look at the three sites I listed above. One from USA, one from Canada and one from Australia.
The fact is, in the USA, violent crimes went down in any state that allows law abiding citizens to have better access to guns.
Where do you get your facts to back up your comments?
Guns are tools, they don't jump up and kill people without help.

hammer:
You also mention the various wars we have been involved in "and we all know how well they have gone."
If I remember correctly, with the help of our friends from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, England and others, we won most of them.
Am I incorrect?
By the way, what country are in?

quote:

the idea that guns in a citizens hand prevent violent crime is an absolute joke...in fact the opposite is true have a look at death stats from from usa and compare to japan,oz and england.

Hammer39,
This statement of yours is completely contrary to ALL of the statistics that I have seen on this issue. Where do you get your "facts" from? I suggest that you do some more research and use statistics from truly unbiased sources.

Just remember that there are three types of untruths: lies, damn lies and statistics - so you need to be very careful where you get your info from and the anti-gunners have realms of false and misleading 'statistics' out there.

In addition, as a new member, it would be helpful if you completed your profile so that we all know where you are located. I would also be interested to know your background, too.

Me thinks we've been sucked in by an antigunner!

quote:

Me thinks we've been sucked in by an antigunner!

TJ, I think that you are right but I see this as an opportunity. While the most rabid anti-gunners are beyond help, many of the antigun movement are people who have only heard one side of the argument and are involved because peer-group pressure convinces them that it is the right thing to do. When any of them raise their heads above the parapet of anti-gun lies, that they hide behind, we should take the opportunity to present our case. We may never win them to our cause but if we can get them to abandon their cause then we win.

well i was right i did rattle a few cages
i thought my profile was complete and i will fix that
but for now let me say i am not anti gun i own and reload and have done for 15 years and use guns both for work and pleasure
i do get to hear of both sides of this debate and as my partner is a lawer and is not particularly enamoured with firearms i find it increasingly difficult to not be swayed by some of her reseach,so i am actually a benifit for your cause as i have shifted her and others veiws on gun ownership in oz to a more moderate outlook.however the day we go down the fundamentalistic path of the right wing like the usa we are history as gun owners and sporting shooters in oz.so yes i am a moderate,it is called preservation
as to facts and figures find them yourself they are out there,as my partner takes great delight in showing me,but then she is a much better researcher than i am,i am too busy trying to make a dollar out here in the wheatbelt
cheers

quote:

as to facts and figures find them yourself they are out there

In the interests of your sport I would suggest that you do some research yourself because it sounds like your partner's research is off the mark. I am not saying that they are being dishonest, but statistical results can be so easily twisted by simple mistakes in the selection criteria of the data when it is collected or selected for the study in question.

It is good that you have made progress in moderating her views, but armed with the right statistics you could make even more progress.

Just another statistic. In 1992 the leading method of choice for suicide in Canada was by firearm. It was one of the reasons cited for the registration.

Now 14 years later suicide by firearm is down more than 500%. Suicide is up 22% but by firearm it is down.

People who want to be violent will always find a way.

hammer:
I say again, check the sites I mentioned above. I did "find them myself". Did you?

Hammer ,
Many of the "statistics" quoted in relation to firearms crime come from sources that have a vested interest in swaying public opinion one way or the other . Firearms are an emotive topic and rarely do we see good objective research done into their relationship with violent crime . Careful background checks on the authors of the various papers that your wife refers to may reveal that they have an anti - firearms bias .
With selective use of statistics and juggling of research protocols you can "prove" almost any hypothesis .
Would be interested to hear your thoughts on the success or otherwise of Howard's gun buybacks .
Which general area of the Wheatbelt ?

I agree with Buschchook and the others.

What area of the Wheatbelt?

I am in the wheatbelt here in Vic, Bushchook in WA.

Where are you?

i am in wa east of perth
now i will have too again be the odd man out and say that i actually dont mind our gun laws but then here they were pretty harsh before the buyback.as too the buyback i have no doubt that the only people it affected were law abiding people so it was not very affective.should we have restrictions?for sure.i am sure that i have no wish to go down the path of no registration or background checks.
i have had a bit of a look at some stats and other sites and agree that it is all clouded in emotion and fuzzy figures but on both sides so no stones should be thrown from anyone
cheers

quote:

Originally posted by hammer39:
i have had a bit of a look at some stats and other sites and agree that it is all clouded in emotion and fuzzy figures but on both sides so no stones should be thrown from anyone

I'm sorry, but man, you sound like a lost cause for any meaningful debate.

Just so we know what we are talking about, what sort of hunting and shooting do you do, and what firearms do you actually own personally?

quote:

Originally posted by TJ:
Me thinks we've been sucked in by an antigunner!

Given a lack of evidence to the contrary, I'd have to agree. Hammer, "too busy making a living"? Come on. Too busy to defend your sport? Or not too busy to go trolling to suck everyone on this site in?
I notice you have time to post, but not to outline your case or situation. Perhaps you should scamper on back to the Coalition for Gun Contol, and tell them you've been burned.

nitro,
i own a brno model 1 22,
rem 22.250 w meopta 3-12*50 scope
steyer 25.06 w swarovski 2.5-10*40 scope
and a 22 mag as a ute gun
i live on a large farm of 10000 ha.and have access to another 10000ha and enjoy varmenting although i do go up north after goats when i have time.
this as all the personal info i am prepared to give.

sambar
i am guilty of not explaining myself properly i was having a go about some stats that tj put up like violent crime in oz higher and armed robbery is up 106%...in fact the last figures from abs is that violent crime is down in oz and so is armed robbery


With the exception of assault, a knife was the most common type of weapon used and was involved in 33% of attempted murders, 28% of murders and 19% of robberies. A firearm was involved in 20% of attempted murders, 13% of murders and 6% of robberies.

from 2003 abs
A firearm was used in 6% of robberies recorded in 2003, the equal lowest proportion since national reporting began in 1993. The proportion of murders involving a firearm in 2003 was also at its lowest on record at 13%. Firearm use in murders peaked at 32% in 1996, but has since declined steadily. For attempted murders in 2003, a firearm was used in 20% of offences, marginally above its low of 19% in 1998 and well below its high of 32% in 1999.
The proportion of robberies in which a weapon was used increased from 36% in 1995 to 46% in 1998 and has since generally declined to 36% in 2004. For those robberies that involved a weapon, the proportion involving a firearm decreased from 28% in 1995 to 14% in 2000, and has been stable from 2000 to 2004 at 15%. The proportion of kidnappings/abductions where a weapon was used also fluctuated from 11% in 1995 to 23% in 1999. Since 1999, this proportion has declined to 13% in 2004.

from 2004 abs
A firearm was used in 5% of robberies recorded in 2004, the lowest proportion since national reporting began in 1993. The proportion of murders involving a firearm was 13% in 2004. This has decreased significantly since 1996 when 32% of murders involved a firearm. For attempted murders in 2004, a firearm was used in 23% of offences, marginally above its low of 19% in 1998 and well below its high of 31% in 1999.
armed robberies are down from 36 per 100 000 in 2003 to 29.8 in 2004 or 7162 in 2003 to 5993 in 2004
i just thought that tj was using rubbery figures
about oz and said something.

as too "scampering back to coalition for gun control" all i can say is she is much better looking than you and she is more accepting of differing points of view than you are.funny that
cheers

quote:

Originally posted by hammer39:
nitro,
i own a brno model 1 22,
rem 22.250 w meopta 3-12*50 scope
steyer 25.06 w swarovski 2.5-10*40 scope
and a 22 mag as a ute gun
i live on a large farm of 10000 ha.and have access to another 10000ha and enjoy varmenting although i do go up north after goats when i have time.

Thanks for the reply.

Some pertinent questions:

So do you believe you have a right or should be allowed to keep the firearms you currently own?

A number of them seem to overlap, what justification do you have to be "permitted" to keep all or any of them?

If allowed to continue owning and using firearms, would you be supportive of being required to have to keep them in a "central firearms repository" rather than your own house?

Do you believe you are an increased danger to your wife, children, neighbours, because you are "permitted" to keep "dangerous lethal firearms" in your house?

quote:

Firearm use in murders peaked at 32% in 1996, but has since declined steadily.

I am going to do some more investigating of my own because some of the statistics you quote, such as the quote above, are contrary to the statistics that I have seen. What I have seen, from a number of sources, is that the murder rate peaked long before 1996 and that it was in a steady decline BEFORE Port Arthur.

Just for fun I thought I would post Texas deadly
force laws. Some may find it intresting.

Deadly Force in Defense of Person

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another if he would be justified in using force under Section 9.31 of the statute when and to the degree he reasonable believes that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force, if a reasonable person in the same situation would have not retreated. The use of deadly force is also justified to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, rape or robbery."

Defense of Another Person

"A person is justified in using deadly force against an attacker to protect another person if he would be justified to use it to protect himself against an unlawful attack and he reasonably believes his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the other person from serious injury or death."

Deadly Force to Protect Property

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means."

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)"

Protection of the Property of Others


"A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect the property of a third person if he reasonably believes he would be justified to use similar force to protect his own property, and he reasonably believes that there existed an attempt or actual commission of the crime of theft or criminal mischief."

"Also, a person is justified in using force or deadly force if he reasonably believes that the third person has requested his protection of property; or he has a legal duty to protect the property; or the third person whose property he is protecting is his spouse, parent or child."

Reasonable Belief

"It is not necessary that there should be actual danger, as a person has the right to defend his life and person from apparent danger as fully and to the same extent as he would have were the danger real, as it reasonably appeared to him from his standpoint at the time."

"In fact, Sec 9.31(a) [of the Penal Code] expressly provides that a person is justified in using deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary."

Justification for Using Deadly Force Can Be Lost

"Even though a person is justified in threatening or using force or deadly force against another in self defense or defense of others or property as described in the statute, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification for deadly force is unavailable."

"A person acts recklessly when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk with respect to the circumstances surrounding his conduct or the results of his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation of the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise, viewed from the person's standpoint under all the circumstances existing at the time."

I like it!!

You wouldn't really shoot some poor underprivileged individual just because he was going to steal your Panasonic TV would you?
Na, tell me its not true.
Do you have the right to protect yourself, your family and your possessions? When did that happen?
You could call the police on your cell phone and they may come by in a couple days.
You could approach him with a club or bat but he may have a gun. Na, that would be against the law, he wouldn't break the law.
It's a good law, Texas is right. You come in my HOME and steal stuff and threaten me or my family, I shoot you. Simple.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TJ:
You wouldn't really shoot some poor underprivileged individual just because he was going to steal your Panasonic TV would you?
Na, tell me its not true.

Of course not, that would be naughty!

Ya but just read the UN is really try to screw
us over this summer.

quote:

Originally posted by TJ:
You wouldn't really shoot some poor underprivileged individual just because he was going to steal your Panasonic TV would you?

I refuse to answer that as it might incriminate me.

#1 cause of domestic death in the US is guns. After all these years as an emergency physician I am certainly disturbed to find out that guns have now learned how to fire themselves, Yikes!

lawndart
John Charlie Noak, MD
Owyhee Medical Clinic
106 West Idaho Ave.
Homedale, Idaho 83628

hammer39,
Let's have you identify yourself for the boys here, please. Also, to prevent your guns from shooting you of their own volition, why don't you send them to me, where they will be safe.

Would I shoot an intruder into our home?

Yes

hammer39,
Let's have you identify yourself for the boys here, please

lawndart
how do i put this politely.......no!!
stay in bumfuck idaho i am sure as a md you can do a lot of good there treating medical emergencies such as overeating too much kfc and mcd's
cheers

Just to ask hammer39 again, as he has said he does agree with a lot of what the anti-gunners preach.

quote:

Originally posted by NitroX:
... hammer39:

....

Some pertinent questions:

So do you believe you have a right or should be allowed to keep the firearms you currently own?

A number of them seem to overlap, what justification do you have to be "permitted" to keep all or any of them?

If allowed to continue owning and using firearms, would you be supportive of being required to have to keep them in a "central firearms repository" rather than your own house?

Do you believe you are an increased danger to your wife, children, neighbours, because you are "permitted" to keep "dangerous lethal firearms" in your house?

quote:

Originally posted by hammer39:

from 2004 abs
A firearm was used in 5% of robberies recorded in 2004, the lowest proportion since national reporting began in 1993. The proportion of murders involving a firearm was 13% in 2004. This has decreased significantly since 1996 when 32% of murders involved a firearm. For attempted murders in 2004, a firearm was used in 23% of offences, marginally above its low of 19% in 1998 and well below its high of 31% in 1999.
armed robberies are down from 36 per 100 000 in 2003 to 29.8 in 2004 or 7162 in 2003 to 5993 in 2004

While this does show that use of firearms in these crimes has evidently decreased, it does not show whether the overall rate of these crimes has increased/decreased. What if the robbery rate has tripled, but the use of firearms has decreased? I don't have the stats, but these figures would be necessary to know whether the gun controls are actually reducing crime, or they are just reducing the levels of guns used in crimes. What are the overall violent crime (robbery, rape, kidnapping, etc) trends for the last decade?

It certainly follows that the fewer guns are available, the less often they will be used for anything (criminal or otherwise) - but does gun control really, truly reduce the general crime rate? My research says no. Criminals are criminals. Without access to guns, they will simply take up some other weapon for the deed. In fact, it might be a great encouragement to them to know for a fact that anyone home will not have quick access to any self-defense guns or any kind. All the guns are locked up nice and tight, out of sight. We'll even leave the loaded .38 on the night table out of this. Let's say you have a single-shot 12 ga in the corner and sleep with a shell in your pocket (or drawer, or some such thing).

Knowing that they won't need a gun will make it so much easier for them to break in, or snatch your purse, or car jack you. Gun control sure makes it a lot safer to be a criminal. They and the politicians can rest easy at night knowing that their world is safer. I'm not trying to preach an American kind of thought on anyone, but I'm glad we have the rights we have here. I truly feel bad for anyone who had their guns or any other property stolen from them by the goverment. It's just another way for the man to keep you down...