Guns, Guns Guns

Peter, I like the lack of quotes and such.

Nameless, the rights you are refering to date from 1934. Before that it appears to have been a state law that ranchers wouldn't be charged with tresspass for grazing on public lands.

I still see no evidence that 200+ armed men were deployed.
I see no evidence that there is a fencing et al dispute. In fact, this would be the first mention of it that I have seen, and I've done a lot of reading recently,

So back to my original point. Quote me some evidence.

Actually, with regard to the Bundy standoff, it should be new thread time.

Annachie wrote:Actually, with regard to the Bundy standoff, it should be new thread time.

Sorry about the mistake about Al Bundy...I somehow a deleted a post (I recreated most of the post) and was extremely annoyed by the destruction of the previous post. I had viewed it and corrected the post but I forgot to submit it (At least that's what I think happened!). All errors are mine! Now, the 200 BLM came from one of the national media shows. It's either FOX and/or CNN news. I like to watch both to see the differences in the stories. CNN is on the break / lunch room and I watch briefly FOX in the afternoon.

He who has the gold makes the rules...just ask Congress.

A lot gets made about Australia's ban on, well I think the phrasing is actually self loading long arms.

But it actually annoys me slightly that people tend to ignore what I think is the main part of those 1996 regulation changes.
The federal government basically forced the states to enact new regulations. (Firearms are a state 'power' not a federal one)

The Firearms Act 1996 provides that certain individuals or 'prohibited persons' may be barred from:

Possessing, carrying or using a firearm
Obtaining a firearm licence
Retaining a firearm licence.

Section 3 of the Firearms Act 1996 outlines the full range of offences, orders and court outcomes that could result in you being classified as a 'prohibited person'.

Broadly however, there are two scenarios that result in a person becoming 'prohibited'. These are:
Certain criminal offences where the court outcomes include findings of guilt, convictions, community based orders or terms of imprisonment

Family violence or stalking orders under the Family Violence Protection Act 2008, the Personal Safety Intervention Orders Act 2010 and equivalent orders from other states.

Criminal offences

You will be considered 'prohibited' for 12 months if you are found guilty by any Australian state or territory court of:

an offence against the Firearms Act 1996 for which a court could impose a term of imprisonment
an offence against any other act involving the possession or use of firearms and for which a court could impose a term of imprisonment
an indictable offence.

Examples of prohibited offences and court results (PDF).
Court orders

You will automatically be considered 'prohibited' if you are subject to a:

Final order under the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 or an order of a corresponding nature made in another state or territory
Final order under the Personal Safety Intervention Orders Act 2010 or an order of a corresponding nature made in another state or territory
Supervised community based order under section 38(1)(b) of the Sentencing Act 1991
Supervision order under section 26 of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997.

You are prohibited from the time the order commences until five years after the order has expired. Your ability to make an application to be deemed non-prohibited will depend in part on whether there are any firearm clauses attached to the order.

and the ban can blow out to as long as 15 years after your release

Summary, violent crime and no gun license, and with a much smaller black market, it's that much harder to get a gun illegally.
On top of that iirc, our storage laws got toughened up at the same time, which iirc dropped the gun theft rate. (Gun in a safe, ammo separate and locked up) People must be getting slack though as the theft rate is rising.

Anyway. Which do people think had more effect on our murder rates, especially the mass shootings.

Personally, I suspect that the massive over-reaction by the federal government scared the gangs into behaving, and yes the laws managed to remove the guns from the crazies.

Case in point I suppose. Down here in Victoria we had a 12 odd year gangland war comprising of assassinations and retributions. 36 or so. One innocent. A case of mistaken identity apparently. Always wondered if they were so circumspect to avoid more over reaction.
I say circumspect. Careful might be better. Several of the shootings were public places.
As opposed to the Milperra Massacre 10 years earlier which admittedly involved over 50 bikies in a public car park.


Of course, prior to 1996 the Aussie gun laws were a mess. It was easier to register a machine gun in NSW than a paintball marker. (I know, we tried to set up a paint ball field in about 1992) Alright, but it sure seemed that way at the time.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milperra_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne_ ... d_killings

The question is "Why does the federal government not enforce the gun laws on the books?"

One, most criminals would not ever get out of jail if the convictions were served consecutively.

Two, Mr. Bloomberg (a Liberal Democrat Billionaire that has 20 paid Security officers guarding him and his family) that has been providing 50 million a year to get rid of guns. I can not legally access how much money he gives the the Democrats. Well, I am an average Joe and can not afford to pay for protection of family. If a person recalls, I have had an experience with armed robber while working as a Night Manager. Thru the Grace of God I was not killed. Unfortunately, a week later another hotel clerk or manager was not so lucky! He's dead! The police generally arrive after the robbery not while it's occurring.

In Washington DC and Chicago, they have the most murders within the United States while having a ban basically on guns. Their are more murders in these 2 cities with the highest gun restrictions. An average person can not get a gun permit! Effectively, the local populace is not armed and that's where the highest crime rate is.

An armed society is a polite society! Most average people are law abiding but the criminals are not!

The second event that involved a gun and murder. The neighbors 2 doors down were murdered by 2 people armed with guns. Both were thought to have beaten to death but were shot a close range with shotgun. Apparently, the man of the house woke and punched one of the intruders and his buddy shot him and then they killed his wife. To this day, I still don't understand why we did not hear the gun shots because I came home at midnight from work when I was a teenager.

So, how does banning guns stop crime? The criminals will find a way to get guns. Just look at Mexico, the average citizen can not own a weapon. The drug cartels run roughshod over the average Mexican living in Northern Mexico.

"So, how does banning guns stop crime?".

Crime will occur regardless of guns but countries that have strict enforceable gun laws have much lower levels of lethal crime. It is not appropriate to quote crime statistics from one part of the USA to another, as with no custom control citizens of a country can simply drive interstate to a lower regulated area to buy guns and drive home again.

I'm a legal gun owner but have had to pass lots of tests to be one and have to keep them securely. The itinerant nut with a criminal record is less likely to be able to get a gun here than there (legally or illegally).

Just about every arguement the US gun loby brings up is countered by looking at any first world country in the world that isn't an active war zone, and a few that were.
Ban the guns, more specifically ban the criminals from having them. Male it illegal to sell a gun to anyone without a license. It will take time because there are far too many guns out there. But take the time and do it.
Sack the cops who refuse to enact the existing gun laws.

But it will never happen because far too many Americans are pteparing to continue fighting the civil war.


Which means I suppose it's pointless to compare US gun and crime statistics to any country that isn't fighting a civil war.

It's even more amazing to see the gun lobby abuse the first amendment to protect the second.

Daryl wrote:"So, how does banning guns stop crime?".

Crime will occur regardless of guns but countries that have strict enforceable gun laws have much lower levels of lethal crime. It is not appropriate to quote crime statistics from one part of the USA to another, as with no custom control citizens of a country can simply drive interstate to a lower regulated area to buy guns and drive home again.

I'm a legal gun owner but have had to pass lots of tests to be one and have to keep them securely. The itinerant nut with a criminal record is less likely to be able to get a gun here than there (legally or illegally).

Yeah, makes a huge difference. The same can clearly be seen here as well, after the combination of joining EU(more or less removing a lot of border controls) and finishing the bridge between Sweden and Denmark, the change in availability of guns among criminals is marked, and there has been a regional increase in gunrelated criminality down south, especially in the Malmö and Göteborg areas.

Why should we not be sacking the cops who refuse to enforce the existing laws against murder.

There was a time half a century ago when US cops solved veer 90% of homicides by identifying, arresting, prosecuting and usually convicting the perpetrator. Clearance rates plummeted in the 1960s which was followed by a surge in violent crime rates. Police in the US "clear" less than two out of three homicides with very low prosecution and conviction rates because their investigations are so inept or fraudulent. The police in cities such as Detroit, Chicago, New Orleans, New York and Washington DC typically clear only 1/3 of homicides or less.

Why the he'll should US citizens allow themselves to be disarmed when the police have declared open season on US citizens?

Annachie wrote:Just about every arguement the US gun loby brings up is countered by looking at any first world country in the world that isn't an active war zone, and a few that were.
Ban the guns, more specifically ban the criminals from having them. Male it illegal to sell a gun to anyone without a license. It will take time because there are far too many guns out there. But take the time and do it.
Sack the cops who refuse to enact the existing gun laws.

But it will never happen because far too many Americans are pteparing to continue fighting the civil war.


Which means I suppose it's pointless to compare US gun and crime statistics to any country that isn't fighting a civil war.

It's even more amazing to see the gun lobby abuse the first amendment to protect the second.

What would you do if armed intruder entered your house with your family and children in it? How would you protect your family? What if they decided to take the 15 or 16 year old daughter captive, your wife.(Sorry goggle search said name was Male based)? What if armed terrorists or criminals were walking into people's houses and just shooting them. What if were to occur at the Mall? (It has happened before!) What would you do to protect your family?

Bottom line, the world is not a nice place! In American history, the guns and cannons were seized. Soldiers were stationed within private households. The colonial script was made illegal and one of the most prosperous colonies of the British Empire was made poor. The bank of England became our default bank. We were told to buy only English goods! Yes, we rebelled. Part of that was the right to bear arms and maintain a militia. Every adult male at the time was part of the militia and was required to have so much powder and ball for his musket.

The present government has decided that they are going to get what they want. So, the current administration is trying to use EPA (environmental protection association) to close the companies that produce bullets. Second, the ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms) has illegally been seizing the local gunshops records. One owner refused and they came back when he was not their and they took his computer systems. What the ATF has done has already been ruled illegal but they appealed and got a stay of the original judge's ruling. So, it's in kind of quasi-legal / illegal mumble jumbo type of situation.

I have no problem with the state governments setting reasonable rules to gun ownership. For most state's are favor of firearm ownership. Recently, the Federal government was ruled in the wrong for not following Federal laws. In the judgement, the judge ruled that Obama administration could not fill appointment positions when the Government was in recess. Recess appointments were ruled illegal and that the Senate might be acting like Children but the Government had to go through and get the Senate approval to fill the appointments.

This gun issue is much more complicated than people have been lead to believe. Currently, the Federal Government is trying to seize huge amounts of power without the consent of the people!

Annachie wrote:Just about every arguement the US gun loby brings up is countered by looking at any first world country in the world that isn't an active war zone, and a few that were.
Ban the guns, more specifically ban the criminals from having them. Male it illegal to sell a gun to anyone without a license. It will take time because there are far too many guns out there. But take the time and do it.
Sack the cops who refuse to enact the existing gun laws.

But it will never happen because far too many Americans are pteparing to continue fighting the civil war.


Which means I suppose it's pointless to compare US gun and crime statistics to any country that isn't fighting a civil war.

It's even more amazing to see the gun lobby abuse the first amendment to protect the second.