Guns, Guns Guns

Spacekiwi wrote:Assuming the criminals will still commit the same crime with or without a gun, would you prefer the criminals are armed with guns, or bats?

Your second paragraph shows the escalation I was talking about. you werent thinking of getting rid of them, you werent thinking of stopping them, you werent thinking of arresting them until the police arrived, you werent thinking of hospitalising them, your reaction was kill.

Im not saying you shouldnt have the opportunity to have guns, only the fact that America among others seem to need a serious need to gun law reform and tightening as guns are too freely available, and that your laws arent enforced well enough, leading to a situation where you believe you need a gun to protect you, because of the possibility that others are likely to have guns. They have guns in case you do, you have guns in case they do.

Zakharra wrote:]
If someone is bringing a gun into a home robbery, it's likely they have something in mind besides just robbery. Most burglars don't want to meet with the home owner, hence why they try to rob homes when no one is home. In business robberies like convenience stores, many times guns are used, but to intimidate the story clerk/cashier person. Many times when confronted by that person who has a gun, the perp tries to flee rather than shoot.

Back on the home robbery though; if someone comes into my house with a gun, I am going to assume they intend to kill us and possibly rape my daughters. With that in mind, I'd have to be retarded as hell to not resist them in whatever way I could. Heck, if someone came into my home with a knife and was intent on violence and/or robbery and I could get to our hunting rifles, I would blow a hole in that person without hesitation. The guns are there for hunting and our home protection. We got our guns legally, most criminals don't get their legally, so what escalating situation are you talking about?

It sounds like you are saying I shouldn't have any guns or any that can be easily accessed because there's an off chance the criminal might get to it? I'm sorry, but to hell with that. I'm not going to limit the defenses of my home based on what a criminal might be able to get a hold of in my home/. By that reasoning, I should let them to anything out of fear of escalating the situation. Pfft, any criminal caught in my house is a corpse just waiting to fall down. We take home defense seriously here, criminals beware.

It was escalated by them when they entered my home uninvited. I have every right to defend my family, my home and my life with any means necessary in my home as determined by me, not the criminal. A person that is unarmed could turn out to be a mass murderer or something like that, someone looking to kill, weapon or not. If they want to live, they should go elsewhere. By entering my home uninvited, they have proven a lack of regard for personal property rights and home ownership. They willingly broke the law when they did that, and to be clear on this, even if they were drunk or drugged, adult or teenager, I'd still treat them the same way: Put them down as fast and quickly as possible if I thought them a threat to home and family. And if an intruder is acting/sounding violent, they go into the 'kill immediately' range. We do not suffer fools gladly here.

Why would I hospitalize them? they could sue me for damages. Better to leave them a corpse bleeding out than suing me for damages and pain and suffering. Criminals have sued home owners that have shot them when they invaded a home and the criminals won the case on the grounds of not providing a safe work environment. If I can help it, that won't happen here. They will just cease breathing altogether.

So I again say that any escalation is on their part, not mine, for daring to invade my home and possibly endanger my family. If they want to live, they shouldn't break in. It's as simple as that.


On the 'only the fact that America among others seem to need a serious need to gun law reform and tightening as guns are too freely available, and that your laws arent enforced well enough, leading to a situation where you believe you need a gun to protect you, because of the possibility that others are likely to have guns', the issue is, only the law abiding citizens obey them. The criminals don't. By making it harder for the common person to have access to guns (and requiring them to be in two pieces locked away with the ammunition locked away somewhere else, why HAVE a gun for self defense then? Or why even register it? Assuming you're not a criminal with a record and are forbidden from having a gun? The thing is here criminals don't obey the law anyways, why would they obey gun laws? Whenever I see new gun legislation being enacted or proposed here in the US, it's only restricting the law abiding citizens from getting firearms, not the criminals.

You are right in that many gun laws aren't enforced properly or vigorously, which is a large part of the problem. Rather than proposing new gun laws/restrictions, they should enforce what we already have.

Guns here aren't just for protection, but also for hunting (deer, elf, caribou, bear, cougar, duck, turkey, pheasant, quail, boar, goose and many other animals I can't remember) for food and animal control, as well as for recreation. Many people like to just shoot their guns at gun ranges and places. For them it's fun.

It was not escalated by them, as they set the bar for further interactions, which you then raised from terror, past injury to death. And killing them without justified and serious belief in an immediate risk to your life or otehrs would make you killing them murder, not self defense. So, again, you escalated it.

And as stated before, the idea is that the law abiding citizens follow the new laws. thats the point. How many criminals were law abiding before they start, or aren't found to be law breakers until its too late? Domestic shootings in families? Dow ndue to a reduction in guns. Gun thefts and crimes commited with stolen guns? down from a reduction in firearms. Criminals are normal people until they commit crimes, so you need to stop them from getting guns to begin their crimes. Fence at the top of the hill works better than the ambulance at the bottom.....

Zakharra wrote: It was escalated by them when they entered my home uninvited. I have every right to defend my family, my home and my life with any means necessary in my home as determined by me, not the criminal. A person that is unarmed could turn out to be a mass murderer or something like that, someone looking to kill, weapon or not. If they want to live, they should go elsewhere. By entering my home uninvited, they have proven a lack of regard for personal property rights and home ownership. They willingly broke the law when they did that, and to be clear on this, even if they were drunk or drugged, adult or teenager, I'd still treat them the same way: Put them down as fast and quickly as possible if I thought them a threat to home and family. And if an intruder is acting/sounding violent, they go into the 'kill immediately' range. We do not suffer fools gladly here.

Why would I hospitalize them? they could sue me for damages. Better to leave them a corpse bleeding out than suing me for damages and pain and suffering. Criminals have sued home owners that have shot them when they invaded a home and the criminals won the case on the grounds of not providing a safe work environment. If I can help it, that won't happen here. They will just cease breathing altogether.

So I again say that any escalation is on their part, not mine, for daring to invade my home and possibly endanger my family. If they want to live, they shouldn't break in. It's as simple as that.


On the 'only the fact that America among others seem to need a serious need to gun law reform and tightening as guns are too freely available, and that your laws arent enforced well enough, leading to a situation where you believe you need a gun to protect you, because of the possibility that others are likely to have guns', the issue is, only the law abiding citizens obey them. The criminals don't. By making it harder for the common person to have access to guns (and requiring them to be in two pieces locked away with the ammunition locked away somewhere else, why HAVE a gun for self defense then? Or why even register it? Assuming you're not a criminal with a record and are forbidden from having a gun? The thing is here criminals don't obey the law anyways, why would they obey gun laws? Whenever I see new gun legislation being enacted or proposed here in the US, it's only restricting the law abiding citizens from getting firearms, not the criminals.

You are right in that many gun laws aren't enforced properly or vigorously, which is a large part of the problem. Rather than proposing new gun laws/restrictions, they should enforce what we already have.

Guns here aren't just for protection, but also for hunting (deer, elf, caribou, bear, cougar, duck, turkey, pheasant, quail, boar, goose and many other animals I can't remember) for food and animal control, as well as for recreation. Many people like to just shoot their guns at gun ranges and places. For them it's fun.

I had serious reservations here when they tightened our gun laws, as I had to surrender my two assault rifles.

Over time though the reduced number of firearms in the community has led to fewer gun deaths. We never did have many concealable firearms, as pistols or revolvers have always been heavily restricted. I've never had a problem with that as they are only of use for killing humans at close range anyway.

Heavy duty career criminals can still get guns by spending lots of money, but they are not the ones you are likely to encounter in your house at 2 am.

One cultural difference I notice in this discussion is the characterisation of people as criminals or non criminals anyway. Most so called criminals are law abiding anyway most of the time (have to be or they would get caught quickly), but some dopey yob may decide on the spur of the moment to do something stupid like a home invasion. He and his friends are unlikely here to have a gun to do so.

Daryl wrote:I had serious reservations here when they tightened our gun laws, as I had to surrender my two assault rifles.

Over time though the reduced number of firearms in the community has led to fewer gun deaths. We never did have many concealable firearms, as pistols or revolvers have always been heavily restricted. I've never had a problem with that as they are only of use for killing humans at close range anyway.

Heavy duty career criminals can still get guns by spending lots of money, but they are not the ones you are likely to encounter in your house at 2 am.

One cultural difference I notice in this discussion is the characterisation of people as criminals or non criminals anyway. Most so called criminals are law abiding anyway most of the time (have to be or they would get caught quickly), but some dopey yob may decide on the spur of the moment to do something stupid like a home invasion. He and his friends are unlikely here to have a gun to do so.

The best way to get rid of the career criminals is the original 3 strikes laws (3rd violent felony leads to a life sentence). They have done wonders here. Actually they were a bit too successful and the politicians started tinkering with the original formula adding non-violent felonies, violent misdemeanors, 2 strikes instead of 3 etc. But the original formula did wonders for the violent crime problem at the time.

Spacekiwi wrote:It was not escalated by them, as they set the bar for further interactions, which you then raised from terror, past injury to death. And killing them without justified and serious belief in an immediate risk to your life or otehrs would make you killing them murder, not self defense. So, again, you escalated it.

And as stated before, the idea is that the law abiding citizens follow the new laws. thats the point. How many criminals were law abiding before they start, or aren't found to be law breakers until its too late? Domestic shootings in families? Dow ndue to a reduction in guns. Gun thefts and crimes commited with stolen guns? down from a reduction in firearms. Criminals are normal people until they commit crimes, so you need to stop them from getting guns to begin their crimes. Fence at the top of the hill works better than the ambulance at the bottom.....

No. The bar is already set high here. The escalation was by the criminal breaking in. And killing them is justified if I think they are a threat. Wounded, they can still harm/kill my family. I will not weaken the defenses of my family just to pander to the belief that I shouldn't have guns. That is stupid and asinine. If the criminals want to live, all they need to do is stay off my property and out of my home. If they don't come here with the intent of theft and/or murder/rape, they won't risk being hurt or killed.

We have quite a few guns and handle them safely. There's been guns in this house for nearly a century and no accidents, and hopefully there will be guns for a long time afterwards too. But we're not talking about domestic accidental shootings, but criminals breaking into occupied homes. That is a difference. It seems to me that you would prefer us to not have guns because you don't like guns.

Aahh. No. A lot of criminals are career criminals, having long records and such so no they aren't normal citizens. So I don't your statement that they are normal people before suddenly committing a crime. Those who can get off the criminal path I applaud, but those who stay on, I have no sympathy for. But many of those criminals don't get weapons legally. Most if not all of them are legally forbidden from having guns, so any they do attain is done illegally.

And that argument by you is moot anyways. I don't care if its a career criminal or a first time criminal breaking into my home. If I can, that person is going to leave in a body bag if I think they are a threat to my family. At the least they will be shot or otherwise wounded for daring to steal out things.

Also, fences can be climbed over so in addition to the fence I have other weapons to defend my home with. A rifle for hunting can very well take out a dangerous criminal too. I fail to see why I should limit my family's defenses by not using a gun to defend them if need be. If you don't like guns,m that's your right, but don;t limit MY access to guns because of your belief.

The bar is set hihg because you believe that taking a life is valid because they broke into your house, and there is a slight possibility they may wish to do more.

I like guns actually, but I have an emotion for them that is called respect. i respect how powerful and dangerous they are if used improperyl, and the potential for havoc they can cause. I believe that like any other dangerous thing, they should be monitored or regulated to a standard which reduces deaths and injuries, such as drivers licenses, road regulations, and the laws and standards surrounding cars.

Lets say for the sake of arguement 70% of gun crimes are committed by career criminals then. so we have 30% of crimes which can be affected straight away by gun regulation, plus make gun theft harder due to reduced gun levels, and reduce the amount of accidental injuries and deaths due to gun mishaps by people who should never have been allowed a gun in that situation. These are the primary taegets of harm that gun laws are trying to prevent. the career criminal stuff is a additional benefit.

As for shooting a thief, dead or not, here in nz youd be up for murder, attempted, grevious bodily harm, assault, and with no chance of calling self defense. why? becauase self defense is predicated on reasonable response, which you just stated you don't have.

Zakharra wrote: No. The bar is already set high here. The escalation was by the criminal breaking in. And killing them is justified if I think they are a threat. Wounded, they can still harm/kill my family. I will not weaken the defenses of my family just to pander to the belief that I shouldn't have guns. That is stupid and asinine. If the criminals want to live, all they need to do is stay off my property and out of my home. If they don't come here with the intent of theft and/or murder/rape, they won't risk being hurt or killed.

We have quite a few guns and handle them safely. There's been guns in this house for nearly a century and no accidents, and hopefully there will be guns for a long time afterwards too. But we're not talking about domestic accidental shootings, but criminals breaking into occupied homes. That is a difference. It seems to me that you would prefer us to not have guns because you don't like guns.

Aahh. No. A lot of criminals are career criminals, having long records and such so no they aren't normal citizens. So I don't your statement that they are normal people before suddenly committing a crime. Those who can get off the criminal path I applaud, but those who stay on, I have no sympathy for. But many of those criminals don't get weapons legally. Most if not all of them are legally forbidden from having guns, so any they do attain is done illegally.

And that argument by you is moot anyways. I don't care if its a career criminal or a first time criminal breaking into my home. If I can, that person is going to leave in a body bag if I think they are a threat to my family. At the least they will be shot or otherwise wounded for daring to steal out things.

Also, fences can be climbed over so in addition to the fence I have other weapons to defend my home with. A rifle for hunting can very well take out a dangerous criminal too. I fail to see why I should limit my family's defenses by not using a gun to defend them if need be. If you don't like guns,m that's your right, but don;t limit MY access to guns because of your belief.

Spacekiwi wrote:The bar is set hihg because you believe that taking a life is valid because they broke into your house, and there is a slight possibility they may wish to do more.

I like guns actually, but I have an emotion for them that is called respect. i respect how powerful and dangerous they are if used improperyl, and the potential for havoc they can cause. I believe that like any other dangerous thing, they should be monitored or regulated to a standard which reduces deaths and injuries, such as drivers licenses, road regulations, and the laws and standards surrounding cars.

Lets say for the sake of arguement 70% of gun crimes are committed by career criminals then. so we have 30% of crimes which can be affected straight away by gun regulation, plus make gun theft harder due to reduced gun levels, and reduce the amount of accidental injuries and deaths due to gun mishaps by people who should never have been allowed a gun in that situation. These are the primary taegets of harm that gun laws are trying to prevent. the career criminal stuff is a additional benefit.

As for shooting a thief, dead or not, here in nz youd be up for murder, attempted, grevious bodily harm, assault, and with no chance of calling self defense. why? becauase self defense is predicated on reasonable response, which you just stated you don't have.

I do respect guns and have always done so. Nothing I'd said ever suggests I don't respect them. I know what they are capable of, so please don't say I do not respect guns. The difference between you and me is I do not want or require the level of monitoring or regulation you want or feel comfortable with. I believe firearms can be used and kept safely and securely without the overly intrusive (to me at least) requirements of them having to be locked up, in two separate parts if possible with ammunition being kept in another place entirely. I feel that is way too much regulation and totally unnecessary and pushed by those who don't want common people to have any firearms.

On your argument, that 70% of criminals using guns, the vast majority will not be getting theirs legally. They will simply import it and get it illegally, so the idea that so restricting guns for the common citizen won't work here in the US to control criminal access to guns.Do we regulate automobiles like that? No. And there are far more auto accidents and deaths each year than accidents and deaths by firearms, but there aren't laws trying to legislate away peoples access to automobiles.

We also have a very different culture in regards to home safety and firearms than you in New Zealand. For us access to firearms for protection and to be able to hunt is a very important part of our history. It's enshrined in our Constitution and the US Supreme Court has upheld the view of the Second Amendment that all citizens are allowed to have firearms. It's sad that there are many in one of the major political parties here that would, if they could, legislate away that right to have firearms. But please bear in mind Spacekiwi that in regards to this, our cultures are very different.

Also as for shooting a burglar, maybe in NZ that would be true, but not here in the US, especially not where I live. In a situation like that it's the person on the spot that has to make the decision. Not the police (who aren't there) or anyone that might be on a jury (they aren't there either), but the home owner in a potentially dangerous situation. And you've missed the qualification that I have been stating in which I would shoot to kill any intruder: I'd only do it if I felt my family was in physical danger. Especially if its dark and I know they are an intruder, in that case I will just shoot for center of mass and take them down. It doesn't take much for a burglar to be a threat and if I see a weapon (even a club), they reach the 'are a physical threat' category.

Honestly it seems like you're arguing that we should be making it safer for criminals rather than harder. That seems wrong. Why should we be making it safer by restricting the ability of home owners to have and use a gun to protect themselves and their homes?

I don't mean to sound confrontational, but I honestly think we just have a large difference of opinion due to the different societies and cultures we live in. You live in a society and nation I would consider fairly restrictive. I live in one you would probably find too open and unrestricted/regulated. So I think we will have to agree to disagree on this matter of gun regulation/restriction.

Fair enough. The geography of the US as compared to NZ does leave some gaps allowing for a much higher potential for smuggling. And fair enough that you believe that your gun laws are too onerous and restrcitive for you. Its just my belief that you have too many laws with too many loopholes that arent enforced enough, and that a fair amount of which prioritise gun ownership over public safety.

Unfortunately, I am unable to find the true percentages of stolen/illegally aquired guns vs legal guns in nz, but I have found the figure of approximately 25,000 to 30,000 as the upper limit of expected illegal guns in NZ vs the 1,000,000 legally acquired fiearms However, a more important number to look at might be gun thefts per year by gun crimes per year. In 2012, NZ police found ~330 illegal guns over the course of the year, with several busts of a dozen or more weapons, so at max, lets say 200. if each of these people commit 4 crimes with their guns before they are caught, thats 800 of the 5600 gun crimes committed last year in nz, or 15%. if each commits 8 crimes on average, thats still only 30% of gun crimes being committed with illegal weapons here.

We may not have laws attempting to legislate away cars, but like guns we do have laws legislating how you may use one, and laws for drivers licenses which have the effect of saying unless you do as we say, then no car for you, through license and car impounding.

I agree I probably live in a country you would consider fairly restrictive due to our gun laws, amongst other laws. But I honestly believe the fact that NZ has a total violent crime rate per 10,000 people of 108 for 2011, to the DOj's estimate of 226 for 2011. half as much violent crime must mean we are doing something correct?

Zakharra wrote: I do respect guns and have always done so. Nothing I'd said ever suggests I don't respect them. I know what they are capable of, so please don't say I do not respect guns. The difference between you and me is I do not want or require the level of monitoring or regulation you want or feel comfortable with. I believe firearms can be used and kept safely and securely without the overly intrusive (to me at least) requirements of them having to be locked up, in two separate parts if possible with ammunition being kept in another place entirely. I feel that is way too much regulation and totally unnecessary and pushed by those who don't want common people to have any firearms.

On your argument, that 70% of criminals using guns, the vast majority will not be getting theirs legally. They will simply import it and get it illegally, so the idea that so restricting guns for the common citizen won't work here in the US to control criminal access to guns.Do we regulate automobiles like that? No. And there are far more auto accidents and deaths each year than accidents and deaths by firearms, but there aren't laws trying to legislate away peoples access to automobiles.

We also have a very different culture in regards to home safety and firearms than you in New Zealand. For us access to firearms for protection and to be able to hunt is a very important part of our history. It's enshrined in our Constitution and the US Supreme Court has upheld the view of the Second Amendment that all citizens are allowed to have firearms. It's sad that there are many in one of the major political parties here that would, if they could, legislate away that right to have firearms. But please bear in mind Spacekiwi that in regards to this, our cultures are very different.

Also as for shooting a burglar, maybe in NZ that would be true, but not here in the US, especially not where I live. In a situation like that it's the person on the spot that has to make the decision. Not the police (who aren't there) or anyone that might be on a jury (they aren't there either), but the home owner in a potentially dangerous situation. And you've missed the qualification that I have been stating in which I would shoot to kill any intruder: I'd only do it if I felt my family was in physical danger. Especially if its dark and I know they are an intruder, in that case I will just shoot for center of mass and take them down. It doesn't take much for a burglar to be a threat and if I see a weapon (even a club), they reach the 'are a physical threat' category.

Honestly it seems like you're arguing that we should be making it safer for criminals rather than harder. That seems wrong. Why should we be making it safer by restricting the ability of home owners to have and use a gun to protect themselves and their homes?

I don't mean to sound confrontational, but I honestly think we just have a large difference of opinion due to the different societies and cultures we live in. You live in a society and nation I would consider fairly restrictive. I live in one you would probably find too open and unrestricted/regulated. So I think we will have to agree to disagree on this matter of gun regulation/restriction.

To our friends in Australia, this was posted on fox news in the US. I just thought I would share this with you and just take a few moments to aware of your surroundings. It never hurts to be alert.

HOUSE INTELLIGENCE Committee chair Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., tells Fox News that messages from ISIS leadership urging recruits to launch attacks in Australia prompted a recent DHS directive boosting security at federal buildings.

From Fox News website

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/30/intel-panel-chairman-isis-directive-to-australian-recruits-fueled-dhs-security/?intcmp=trending

Spacekiwi wrote:Fair enough. The geography of the US as compared to NZ does leave some gaps allowing for a much higher potential for smuggling. And fair enough that you believe that your gun laws are too onerous and restrcitive for you. Its just my belief that you have too many laws with too many loopholes that arent enforced enough, and that a fair amount of which prioritise gun ownership over public safety.

Unfortunately, I am unable to find the true percentages of stolen/illegally aquired guns vs legal guns in nz, but I have found the figure of approximately 25,000 to 30,000 as the upper limit of expected illegal guns in NZ vs the 1,000,000 legally acquired fiearms However, a more important number to look at might be gun thefts per year by gun crimes per year. In 2012, NZ police found ~330 illegal guns over the course of the year, with several busts of a dozen or more weapons, so at max, lets say 200. if each of these people commit 4 crimes with their guns before they are caught, thats 800 of the 5600 gun crimes committed last year in nz, or 15%. if each commits 8 crimes on average, thats still only 30% of gun crimes being committed with illegal weapons here.

We may not have laws attempting to legislate away cars, but like guns we do have laws legislating how you may use one, and laws for drivers licenses which have the effect of saying unless you do as we say, then no car for you, through license and car impounding.

I agree I probably live in a country you would consider fairly restrictive due to our gun laws, amongst other laws. But I honestly believe the fact that NZ has a total violent crime rate per 10,000 people of 108 for 2011, to the DOj's estimate of 226 for 2011. half as much violent crime must mean we are doing something correct?

Zakharra wrote: I do respect guns and have always done so. Nothing I'd said ever suggests I don't respect them. I know what they are capable of, so please don't say I do not respect guns. The difference between you and me is I do not want or require the level of monitoring or regulation you want or feel comfortable with. I believe firearms can be used and kept safely and securely without the overly intrusive (to me at least) requirements of them having to be locked up, in two separate parts if possible with ammunition being kept in another place entirely. I feel that is way too much regulation and totally unnecessary and pushed by those who don't want common people to have any firearms.

On your argument, that 70% of criminals using guns, the vast majority will not be getting theirs legally. They will simply import it and get it illegally, so the idea that so restricting guns for the common citizen won't work here in the US to control criminal access to guns.Do we regulate automobiles like that? No. And there are far more auto accidents and deaths each year than accidents and deaths by firearms, but there aren't laws trying to legislate away peoples access to automobiles.

We also have a very different culture in regards to home safety and firearms than you in New Zealand. For us access to firearms for protection and to be able to hunt is a very important part of our history. It's enshrined in our Constitution and the US Supreme Court has upheld the view of the Second Amendment that all citizens are allowed to have firearms. It's sad that there are many in one of the major political parties here that would, if they could, legislate away that right to have firearms. But please bear in mind Spacekiwi that in regards to this, our cultures are very different.

Also as for shooting a burglar, maybe in NZ that would be true, but not here in the US, especially not where I live. In a situation like that it's the person on the spot that has to make the decision. Not the police (who aren't there) or anyone that might be on a jury (they aren't there either), but the home owner in a potentially dangerous situation. And you've missed the qualification that I have been stating in which I would shoot to kill any intruder: I'd only do it if I felt my family was in physical danger. Especially if its dark and I know they are an intruder, in that case I will just shoot for center of mass and take them down. It doesn't take much for a burglar to be a threat and if I see a weapon (even a club), they reach the 'are a physical threat' category.

Honestly it seems like you're arguing that we should be making it safer for criminals rather than harder. That seems wrong. Why should we be making it safer by restricting the ability of home owners to have and use a gun to protect themselves and their homes?

I don't mean to sound confrontational, but I honestly think we just have a large difference of opinion due to the different societies and cultures we live in. You live in a society and nation I would consider fairly restrictive. I live in one you would probably find too open and unrestricted/regulated. So I think we will have to agree to disagree on this matter of gun regulation/restriction.

Thanks smr, that info has been in our news but still appreciated. Latest score is that of the estimated 60 Australians who have travelled to join ISIS about 20 have been killed recently. Some by our own Super Hornet air strikes. Who says governments always waste money? Included in that 20 was the ex drug dealer who called for the attacks on our federal buildings.

On the gun topic, yesterday a career criminal came to court. He had several months ago tried to intimidate a rival drug dealer in a public car park by firing a shot from an automatic pistol into the ground. For possession of an illegal firearm, going armed in public so as to cause fear, and discharging said firearm his sentence was 7 and a half years. The judge commended the several public witnesses who came forward with the details and his car rego. We really don't like people having concealable guns in this country.