Cities are also crowded places if police do pull out their guns, reminds me of this incident.
I didn’t vote in the “Gun Control should:” section because it is not a matter of be stronger, be weaker or remain at current levels, what we need is some sensible common sense gun control that is NOT totally aimed at law abiding licenced gun owners. Gun control is supposed to be in place for public safety, but in fact gun control does not TOTALLY achieve this. You can’t legislate against “stupid”, & all the laws in the world will not stop crime because criminals DO NOT obey the laws.
The gun control laws that exist are a produce of ignorance, the law makers simply do not know enough about firearms, the police don’t know enough about firearms. They know about their service arms but that is all. The police officer that did my annual firearms check admitted to me that he knew very little about firearms in general, in fact he was also ignorant of the firearms legislation in general. He could not tell an antique gun from a period replica, he was even confused between what was a muzzle-loading firearm & what was a breach-loader! Because of his ignorance it cost me money & time to stop the confiscation of my antiques, & bare in mind that antique firearms in NSW do not require a firearms license or registration. But ask yourself, why should it matter if an 18th century flintlock muzzle-loader is an antique or a copy when they both look the same & both work the same?! This is a typical example of ridiculous gun control. When was the last time a criminal committed a crime using a muzzle-loader?! I have an antique flintlock pistol, if I want to “use” it, I have to apply for a restricted “H” class firearms licence, & even then I would only be legally allowed to “use” it on a registered pistol club range, NOT on my own private property! Could they change this law so we can use flintlocks on a lesser “B” class licence? Yes of course they could but they won’t because they don’t give a damn & can’t be bothered.
Possessing any object specifically for the purpose of self-defence, lethal or non-lethal, is a criminal offence in Australia. There are many women, raped and/or murdered, who would have been liable to prosecution had they been carrying anything that might have saved them.
Bad enough that we are not legally able to carry ANYTHING for use in self defence, but also we are not legally allowed to defend ourselves or our family in a home invasion with a registered/licenced gun that we own for a different legal reason!!! What sort of human being is going to let his family die when he has a gun in the gun safe? It is illegal to NOT have your gun in the gun safe unless you are physically using it. BUT, if I am out bush camping I can lean my gun against a tree whilst I light the camp fire, & I can sleep on the ground with that same gun lying beside me, so WHY is it illegal if I am in my house, but not illegal if I am not in my house? Can anyone explain this?
As farmers we used to be able to carry snake guns; cut down .410 shotguns, these are illegal now. We could carry hand guns because we simply can’t carry a longarm when working in the field & we may need to protect ourselves from wild boar attacks. That too is now illegal. The only gun control law that is worth anything is the use of the gun safe, & even that inconveniences law abiding gun owners when the guns have to be locked away even when they are present in the house! Criminals DO NOT obey gun laws, they don’t obey any laws. They even have access to 3D printed guns now so present restrictions are just a waste of tax payers money.
I assume from your comment kaz that you have never been shot at or involved in a home invasion where your life or the lives of family members were in danger. Not everyone is so lucky kaz.
Yes Liam, & now they are carrying assault rifles!!!
I think you really need to nut out whether or not one should have the right to protection of person and/or property. We in Australia do not have that right and that is why it can not be used to own a fire arm. The police carry to protect us (well that is what is said - just don’t have a mental illness)
That’s the whole point. We have an effective police force and justice system. There is literally no reason to be carrying a gun for personal self defence purposes outside of a profession. We have progressed past that point as a country and I won’t be supporting any measure that’ll drag us back to the past as this will.
No kaz sorry but I have to disagree. The police rarely save anyone, they only arrive on the crime scene after the crime has been committed. The justice system is woeful, letting criminals out on bail & in general the penalties are not sufficient for the crime.
I’ll just refer you to this:
Having people locked up is expensive and can end up costing more than ‘the crime’ cost in the first place.
In menney cases being locked up, is not seen as a “penelity” to the affender, and thus is no deterant.
We need to seperate mentally ill, from,crims and find differant ways to address thair differant failings, of course there are some in society I would just put up against a wall and shoot.
I don’t think the party supports capital punishment, but IIRC we do support voluntary euthanasia.
So I suppose there’s an argument for life prisoners to have that option too…
I certainly don’t support capital punishment, ‘voluntary euthanasia.’ now that’s a new take on the issue. Its the Walking the Plank clause,
I don’t think you read the policy,
,I’m not sure what part of the police your referring to, ? I have read the stated objectives, in your link
I find I’m in-sink with with the policy, You may have found my I would just put up against a wall
at issue ? ? it was in reference to “Except for the perpetrators of the most heinous crimes,”
And of course as Alex pointed out capital punishment is not an option.
The goal of the policy is to drastically reduce the recidivism rate, thereby dramatically reducing the prison population and associated costs as well as reducing the costs of crime, police, courts, parole etc.
I think it’s quite rare for anybody to want to go to prison, with the exception of some people who have become totally institutionalised by having been in prison for far too long already.
On the whole though, the prison population consists of people that we as a society have already failed in some way, typically starting during their childhood. A large proportion of them never finished school. Many are mentally ill. Many are drug/alcohol addicted. Something like 50% of children born with fetal alcohol syndrome end up in prison. Many others just have anger management problems and/or dysfunctional families.
This is why we propose the Social Impact Bond solution that would offer a widely diverse range of assistance to get released prisoners up to a socially functional state.
It’s really not possible to specifically separate the mentally ill from the sane-but-criminal individuals. There isn’t a nice clean dividing line. If they are acutely insane, with symptoms like severe psychosis, they will already be sent to somewhere like a mental asylum instead of prison, but what should we do with psychopaths for example (assuming we can identify them)? They mostly just don’t play well with others because of their total lack of empathy and consequent narcissism and manipulative behaviours.
What about the schizophrenics who can’t stay on their medications so they keep hearing voices that tell them to do bad things. If they commit a crime because a voice in their head told them to, but then they go back on their medication and the voices go away, can we just let them out now? I don’t think so. It’s kind of equivalent to forgiving the drunk driver for the road toll they caused because they’re back on the wagon again.
It won’t be possible to help everyone.
Some peoples problems are too hard, but many are not, and so we should do better.
There’s even a subgroup of the prison population who just end up there because they’re not smart enough to function in modern society. Nobody at all really likes to talk about their problems, but think about how they relate to the dictum that “Ignorance of the law is not a defence”.
I couldn’t agree more, that just about covers it.
"he gun control laws that exist are a produce of ignorance, " reference? is this supported by data?
“… sensible common sense gun control that is NOT totally aimed at law abiding licenced gun owners.”
“sensible common sense” what is that?
“Criminals DO NOT obey gun laws, they don’t obey any laws.”
Do you agree that this is a rather weak reasoning?
If we take this road, why bother with any laws to begin with?
I can see you have a problem Kaido, obviously anti-gun. People like you always reply rudely & with attitude.I have no intention of trying to sensibly discuss this topic with you.
I sincerely apologize if any disrespect to you as a person is made. The intend is to have a respectful discussion. Whenever I post anything on web, I expect rather harsh criticism to the opinion as long as the opposing side do not disrespect me and do no assert anything about my intend. I honestly [deep in heart] do not mean to disrespect.
Allow me to respectfully blame the media for creating a divisive atmosphere where people are labeled ‘anti-x’ or ‘pro-x’.
My attempt was to as clearly as possible express my opinion. In hope of achiving meaningful discourse about what laws are. Disagreement about opinion is not the same as disrespect. If I get a score of ‘0’ it doesn’t mean the teacher hates me. Between us, neither is the teacher, so if I asked for clarification, you can just clarify by reinforcing your opinion with data, reason or evidence.
You are positing a dichotomy - criminals and non-criminals, as if all gun related behaviour is defined by those characteristics. The reality is not so simple.
Qouting from another person in the forum and questioning it’s validity as a legit argument.