Charity Begins At Home

[DUANNE]

yeah no worries mate, i probably should have taken more noticeof that before going off on a rant.

 

[Dave70]

A couple of months back I recall Joolia anounced a pledge of $435M for Indonesian schools, well good for them I thought. A couple of days ago she announced $1M for the poor all buggers affected by the floods up here in QLD. Now, these are Australians and tax payers and all the stupid bitch can come up with is $1M ????? FFS, what kind of country are we living in? What is their reasoning? "They are aussies, they have insurance, they can afford to rebuild?" Anyone who thought a new age was dawning with a female prime minister must be shaking their heads in disbelief. Bloody polititians MUST realise they are playing with the taxpayers money not their own. I ask that you all email your local federal member as I have done to protest about this bullshit.

Sorry about the expletives

Browndog

The operative word here is 'pledge'. You don't really think guberments just give away vast sums of cash unless there's a drink in it for them do you? The Indo's obviously have something we want, maby it's Aussie company's supplying the materials for those schools, but there must be some back room deal - who knows.
The only thing politicians give a shit about in regard to a local disaster is the photo op, far more important to be 'seen' to be doing something. There's no impetus for them to do anything that wont get them re elected.

And anyone who thought there would be a 'new age' dawning due to having a barely elected female prime minister is a retard of the highest order.

 

[marksfish]

The operative word here is 'pledge'. You don't really think guberments just give away vast sums of cash unless there's a drink in it for them do you? The Indo's obviously have something we want, maby it's Aussie company's supplying the materials for those schools, but there must be some back room deal - who knows.
The only thing politicians give a shit about in regard to a local disaster is the photo op, far more important to be 'seen' to be doing something. There's no impetus for them to do anything that wont get them re elected.

And anyone who thought there would be a 'new age' dawning due to having a barely elected female prime minister is a retard of the highest order.

do you mean things like little johnnys gun laws after Port Arthur?.

 

[philw]

do you mean things like little johnnys gun laws after Port Arthur?.

Don't start me on that $500 Mil Steel Back and bend over for LAFO's

 

[Dave70]

do you mean things like little johnnys gun laws after Port Arthur?.

Actually, that would be more 'seen to be doing something' - like the way our PM wore a bullet proof vest when he addressed a public meeting of shooters shortly after. What a fine endorsement of shooters that was.
Imagine the hue and cry if he had pulled a similar stunt whilst addressing a crowd of muslims post 9/11.

 

[bum]

There actually was a huge outcry at the time. Also more than a few death-threats as well in the time leading up to it, if I recall. That whole period was the only time he showed any sack whatsoever in his entire career.

Note: not giving a **** about anyone but himself (White, middle-class Australia) should not be thought of as showing sack.

 

[DUANNE]

showed sack by doing just what the media was howling for? no law abiding shooter would haveshot him ,only some one with an already illegal fire arm.the laws have done a good job though, law abiding shooters have to jump through hoops while the black market in guns is the healthiest its ever been.biggest knee jerk youll ever see.

 

[bum]

biggest knee jerk youll ever see.

Bull.

Shit.

Gimme one good reason a civilian needs an automatic weapon.

 

[schooey]

Bull.

Shit.

Gimme one good reason a civilian needs an automatic weapon.

I see your point, but the same logic could be applied to cars...

Why do we need to be able to buy a car with 350 kw capable of 300 km/h when I can get a Hyundai Getz with 65 kw that will reach the maximum legal speed limit in any state in a little more time? Not to mention the carbon footprint...blah blah blah...

And I bet the 350 kw vehicles have killed more people in this country....

 

[jonocarroll]

Gimme one good reason a civilian needs an automatic weapon.

I see your point, but the same logic could be applied to cars...

Why do we need to be able to buy a car with 350 kw capable of 300 km/h

Why indeed... ?

 

[bum]

I see your point, but the same logic could be applied to cars...

Why do we need to be able to buy a car with 350 kw capable of 300 km/h when I can get a Hyundai Getz with 65 kw that will reach the maximum legal speed limit in any state in a little more time? Not to mention the carbon footprint...blah blah blah...

And I bet the 350 kw vehicles have killed more people in this country....

The thing is (as QB points out above, more succinctly) the answer is that we don't need to - some of us need such a vehicle and under such a proposal (which I'm not suggesting is required) exceptions should be made for such people but at the end of the day most of us just want them (same as with semi/auto weapons).

And, yes, I agree that powerful cars would have killed a shitload more people than automatic weapons in this country but that's not the only thing cars are designed for, you know? But even if that wasn't true at what point would you set the threshold - what number of people killed is acceptable compared to the benefits of civilians owning automatic weapons?

 

[O'Henry]

Zero

 

[marksfish]

Bull.

Shit.

Gimme one good reason a civilian needs an automatic weapon.

if it was only automatic firearms not to many people would have bitched about the laws, but they also banned semi-automatic rifles and shotguns and pump action shotguns while leaving pump action rifles as legal. and do you really think the gun laws have worked in their aim of reducing murder or suicide rates?

 

[brettprevans]

since this is completely OT now....

research shows that in areas with more legal guns (ie licences) the crime rate is lower. this effect is compounded in areas where concealed weapon licences are also available. now this research is mainly from the US and is now about 10yrs old but it should still hold true.

no civvie needs an auto. semi auto for farms, pig shooting etc yeah fine.

and um since when are pump action shotty's illegal? Cat C/D gun licence allows for pump action. the pumping is the method for loading a round into the chamber. it makes no differance if its pump or lever/bolt action. so long as its not auto or semi auto. now ok most people arent going to get granted a C/D licence, but still.

 

[Pennywise]

 

[manticle]

do you really think the gun laws have worked in their aim of reducing murder or suicide rates?

Their aim was to make it less easy for Joe Blow to purchase a weapon capable of easily murdering 30+ people in an hour long shooting spree, not reduce the murder/suicide rate as a whole.

Who needs a semi-automatic to commit suicide anyway?

Back on topic - hopefully the federal government is seeing the 1mil as immediate funds to be followed up by something a lot more substantial including restructuring, rehousing andcompensation for lost produce.

I say hopefully............

 

[brettprevans]

if it was only automatic firearms not to many people would have bitched about the laws, but they also banned semi-automatic rifles and shotguns and pump action shotguns while leaving pump action rifles as legal. and do you really think the gun laws have worked in their aim of reducing murder or suicide rates?

before gun buy-back et al

In the eleven years between January 1987 and January 1998, Australia experienced approximately three gun massacres per year where on average, four people died in each of these massacres. The only other western nation to experience such a massacre rate is America5. Of the actual 141 killed, 69 were female and 72 were male. Twenty of the 141 were children under 18 years of age.
[Mukherjee Satyanshu, Carcach C., (1996) Violent Deaths and Firearms in Australia : Data & Trends, Australian Institute of Criminology, (Research and Public Policy; No. 4). Australian Firearms Buyback Web page. P 4.]

since buy back.. well i dont have data but its bugger all.

 

[brettprevans]

research shows that in areas with more legal guns (ie licences) the crime rate is lower. this effect is compounded in areas where concealed weapon licences are also available. now this research is mainly from the US and is now about 10yrs old but it should still hold true.

research is from
Review of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws The Freeman; Irvington-on-Hudson, 48:752-753
McCain, R. (Sept 21, 1998), Insight on the news, Concealed Weapons Stop Crime. Washington Post.
Barone M. Fall 1998 More guns, less crime? Public Interest. 133:121-124. Washington.

- States with the largest increases in gun ownership also had the largest drops in violent crime.
- Urban minority communities with high crime rates "have the greatest reductions in violent crime when law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns."
- Women especially benefit from carrying concealed handguns, having a murder-prevention effect "3 to 4 times higher" than men with guns.9
His overall findings can be summarised as (1) The average crime rate falls after the nondiscretionary concealed-handgun laws are adopted; (2) violent-crime rates were rising until these laws were adopted; and (3) the magnitude of the drops, both across counties and states and over time, corresponds to the number of permits issued.

just in case u thought i was making it up.

oh an back on topic

you know that countries that provide foreign aid get a raft of benefits from internation money lenders etc. thats why countries do it. They get bugger all from providing internal aid (other than actually helping people and people able to control the outcome of the aid). not that i agree, im just saying

just food for thought.

 

[Leigh]

Their aim was to make it less easy for Joe Blow to purchase a weapon capable of easily murdering 30+ people in an hour long shooting spree, not reduce the murder/suicide rate as a whole.

The most elite gunsmen in the world struggle to achieve what you are suggesting! I'll leave that thought for you to ponder...

before gun buy-back et al

In the eleven years between January 1987 and January 1998, Australia experienced approximately three gun massacres per year where on average, four people died in each of these massacres. The only other western nation to experience such a massacre rate is America5. Of the actual 141 killed, 69 were female and 72 were male. Twenty of the 141 were children under 18 years of age.
[Mukherjee Satyanshu, Carcach C., (1996) Violent Deaths and Firearms in Australia : Data & Trends, Australian Institute of Criminology, (Research and Public Policy; No. 4). Australian Firearms Buyback Web page. P 4.]

since buy back.. well i dont have data but its bugger all.

There's a small town in Texas in the US of A (where else) where not carrying a gun (as an adult) is illegal...surprisingly they have the lowest crime rate and shootings of any place in the good ole (pun) You Ess of Aye...I guess crims are scared in that town of having a gun pulled on them!

Throughout history, abolition has just created a stronger black market and generally resulted in the opposite of what was intended...

Now what was the topic again?

 

[philw]

if it was only automatic firearms not to many people would have bitched about the laws, but they also banned semi-automatic rifles and shotguns and pump action shotguns while leaving pump action rifles as legal. and do you really think the gun laws have worked in their aim of reducing murder or suicide rates?

especially as Suicide rates were on the decline before Port Arthur be they with Firearms or non firearms

one of the points of this was to stop Illegal Use of firearms.. hmm criminals still have them today and they are still using them guess that did not work as by definition Criminals don't obey the laws.


all they did was add further restrictions for law abiding people