Self defence in Australia (LDP)

[Lovey80]

Sure, the world isn't always a nice place and there are threats out there but very, very few of them can be effectively reduced by you, me or anyone else having a firearm within easy reach.

That's not to say guns aren't really f**king cool either, because they are amazingly awesome pieces of machinery. It's just that they can be really dangerous and unless there's an actual need for them then simply having them around because it kinda feels good isn't really a great reason to make them legal to own outside of the very limited number of circumstances where people already can.

People that want this right aren't intent on "effectively reducing more than a very few threats". They are hopefully never going to need to use them for such use and they are intent on only reducing that small number (if any) threats that come their way in their life times. But in saying that there is a very good saying that goes along the lines of: A gun is a wonderful thing to have and not need but a horrible thing to need and not have". Or words to that effect.

And on your last paragraph, the "having them around because it kinda feels good" shows your prejudice against people like me that feel comfortable having firearms around because inherently you think that I don't really need one so you are happy for the state to force me to not have the means to protect myself. Because it feels good to have one around certainly isn't a reason, because it feels good knowing that I (and my family) have a very high likelihood of surviving a lethal force encounter is a perfect reason to make them legal.

You just got through saying that you've been handling firearms in a professional capacity for the last twenty years. Now, I don't know if you bring your work home with you to the extent that a threat still exists for you after you clock off for the day or whether you never really switch off from work and simply feel vulnerable without a firearm even though there's no reason to outside of a work context.

Either way, people in your circumstances - trained and experienced - aren't really the issue.

The problem is the guy who thinks that he lives in a dangerous neighborhood because someone down the street had a bicycle go missing from their front lawn two years ago, and that's why he needs a pistol sitting on the nightstand next to the Stilnox and the iPhone charger.

No mate you keep missing the point. The problem is that break and enters, rapes, assaults, murders happen all the time, you don't need to bring it home with you, it will come to many unasked.. As long as old mate believes that he lives in a dangerous neighbourhood and is at no risk to the public (which 99% of Australians are) he should be allowed to own a firearm for self protection purposes. Your quotes on Switzerland are irrelevent as the number of "reservists" as you call them with state owned fire arms is very high. Trust me that the amount of firearms training is not that high and I'd argue that an Australian licensed pistol owner has gone through a lot lot more hoops to obtain their weapon just to shoot at paper.

No one is saying we need to relax the laws to where people are open carrying as neighbourhood watchmen, but having a regulated firearm, gone through the checks, one should be able to have one should the unthinkable happen and an intruder enters their home.

Make no mistake, Australia isn't the same place it was in 1996. The world is changing very fast and we need to change with it.

 

[Lovey80]

All my comments ref knives being more dangerous and guns are sarcasm in response to raidiobirdman making silly statements, I was pulling the piss out of him. Thanks for agreeing with me on that point, radiobirdman take note of what lovely80 says. You are 100 perent correct in what you say about revolvers not having stoppages, same as a side by side shotgun for example. In 11 pages of posts why are you the only person to pick that up? That seems to suggest a complete lack of knowledge on behalf of EVERY other person posting pro gun posts and reinforces my point about the majority of people not having a competant level of skill/knowledge in relation to firearms.

Ref stoppages I have mainly used a browning hi-power 9mm, they are very prone to stoppages, also used a H&K, a lot nicer pistol and you do get less stoppages but they happen regularly. I had a browning semi-auto shotgun and stoppages were a regular occurance it. I have used M4's, SLRs, AR15s, steyers, AK47s etc and a lot of different belt fed maxhine guns, you get constant stoppages all day long and they are all kept immaculately clean.

Read the FIRST line of the FIRST article I found when you type in gun stoppages into your search engine.

"Pistol stoppages on the range are a common occurance"

www.officer.com/article/11443133/pistol/-stoppages-their-causes

The video Julie just posted is spot on the money, what he says is so funny is because it is true and it uses sarcasm to pull the piss out of the pro gun argument. Watch the link she provided to the whole clip

Why did I let myself get dragged back into this stupidity.......

99.999% of live ammunition stoppages are operator error and 99.999% of the stoppages you had "regularly" were also operator error.... as the content of your article outlines. At the range, pistol stoppages even among competition shooters, the vast majority come from them tweaking loads to gain an advantage, usually with modified weapons. Ie lowering the powder to the point where it just barely cycles the action with the lowest recoil possible. Great at home when they are testing loads firing into a barrel of sand, then they rock up to am IPSC comp and wonder why their weapon keeps stopping after 100 rounds or so.

I have fired all of those weapons you have and the amount of "live" ammunition stoppages I've had where it wasn't operator error I can count on one hand and all of them were bad primers/no powder jobies. Regardless, the minute chance a stoppage may occur in a lethal force encounter is not a reason to discourage a firearm but a reason to encourage training, range time, stoppage drills.... if you are serious enough about your safety to buy a pistol you should be serious enough to be proficient with it.

 

[Newtosilver]

All my comments ref knives being more dangerous and guns are sarcasm in response to raidiobirdman making silly statements, I was pulling the piss out of him. Thanks for agreeing with me on that point, radiobirdman take note of what lovely80 says. You are 100 perent correct in what you say about revolvers not having stoppages, same as a side by side shotgun for example. In 11 pages of posts why are you the only person to pick that up? That seems to suggest a complete lack of knowledge on behalf of EVERY other person posting pro gun posts and reinforces my point about the majority of people not having a competant level of skill/knowledge in relation to firearms.

Ref stoppages I have mainly used a browning hi-power 9mm, they are very prone to stoppages, also used a H&K, a lot nicer pistol and you do get less stoppages but they happen regularly. I had a browning semi-auto shotgun and stoppages were a regular occurance it. I have used M4's, SLRs, AR15s, steyers, AK47s etc and a lot of different belt fed maxhine guns, you get constant stoppages all day long and they are all kept immaculately clean.

Read the FIRST line of the FIRST article I found when you type in gun stoppages into your search engine.

"Pistol stoppages on the range are a common occurance"

www.officer.com/article/11443133/pistol/-stoppages-their-causes

The video Julie just posted is spot on the money, what he says is so funny is because it is true and it uses sarcasm to pull the piss out of the pro gun argument. Watch the link she provided to the whole clip

Why did I let myself get dragged back into this stupidity.......

99.999% of live ammunition stoppages are operator error and 99.999% of the stoppages you had "regularly" were also operator error.... as the content of your article outlines. At the range, pistol stoppages even among competition shooters, the vast majority come from them tweaking loads to gain an advantage, usually with modified weapons. Ie lowering the powder to the point where it just barely cycles the action with the lowest recoil possible. Great at home when they are testing loads firing into a barrel of sand, then they rock up to am IPSC comp and wonder why their weapon keeps stopping after 100 rounds or so.

I have fired all of those weapons you have and the amount of "live" ammunition stoppages I've had where it wasn't operator error I can count on one hand and all of them were bad primers/no powder jobies. Regardless, the minute chance a stoppage may occur in a lethal force encounter is not a reason to discourage a firearm but a reason to encourage training, range time, stoppage drills.... if you are serious enough about your safety to buy a pistol you should be serious enough to be proficient with it.

99.999% of stoppages were operator error? That is a huge call and I would say ignorant, all ammo used except for the shotgun were factory loads, there was no hitting the bottom of the magazines etc that causes stoppages. You also seem to assume all people would have a basic level of competance which is not the case in reality and why there are so many people who are killed in accidents.

 

[Lovey80]

When is innocent people being killed by people "protecting" themselves by accident for example not a significant problem?

Rather than retort with a question, I should have said: innocent people being injured or killed by criminals is always a significant problem.

There must be a point in time when the the injuries/deaths of innocents at the hands of criminals becomes significant, but at the moment, we haven't arrived there yet. Well, that's according to you and Big A.D. anyway.

If it ever was significant, it's less so now. Violent crime in Australia has been on a downward trend for over 20 years.

If you get murdered in Australia, there's a 9 out of 10 chance you know the killer. There's a 5 out of 10 chance it's your spouse.

It was going down the twenty years before that also, so was gun murders. So you see what we have here is a causation/correlation problem. Violent crime is going down but apparently we'd become like America and not Switzerland? I'd beg to differ. America has a violence problem, not a gun problem.

 

[Lovey80]

Unfortunately many lefties do feel entitled to impose their ideals and beliefs on others.

Yennus,

I do not view or consider people and their beliefs or opinions as 'Left' or 'Right', but different. I respect Big A. D.'s opinion and beliefs and ask him to do the same for me. If he believes and chooses to not participate in 'active' self-defence', this is his privilege and right just as it is my right and privilege to participate in 'active' self-defence.

Flipping all this on its head, if I stated that I believe everyone by law should be required to carry a firearm for self-defence, no exceptions, no excuses, is not different from Big A. D. to believe that no one by law should be allowed to carry a firearm for self-defence, no exceptions, no excuses. Both is imposing unwanted legal consequences on the other with no recourse. Big A. D. should have the right to his beliefs and choose to not carry a firearm to defend himself just as I should have the right to my beliefs and choose to carry a firearm to defend myself and others. This is called liberty and equal rights when combined with mutual respect means that if Big A. D. expresses concern about possible negative consequences of my choice to carry a firearm, I listen as he may valid concerns, such as storage, my skills and etc. and make adjustments as needed, just I may have concerns about him choosing to not carry a firearm, such as when working in high risk areas, etc, he listens and make adjustments as needed. But neither of us demand that the other conform to our personal beliefs and choices.

Sadly what I described requires both of us to maintain and use a high degree of personal responsibility and accountability, which is very lacking in today's society. And 7 or 8 pages of this thread as posted by Newtosilver is a very vivid exhibit of people not taking responsibility for their choices and as result themselves and others suffer tragic consequences. I also do not believe in saving people from themselves, so while I take note of all the incidents of accidental firearms deaths, I see as genetic cleansing or winning the Darwin award. If you are stupid enough to leave a loaded firearm unattended and your child shoots you, its siblings, or itself, well, you deserve it. You may well say, the child does not deserve it, well, if the parent is that stupid, then child mostly is a carrier of the stupid gene as well. I make no apology for my lack of empathy for someone not taking personal responsibility. It was not a tragic accident, it was the result of bad choices and actions.

I do not believe that everyone should own a firearm or carry a firearm for self-defence. It is a very personal decision with plenty data and studies to support the numbers that approx. only 10% of population will choose to arm themselves in self-defence and only about 2% will make the choice to deploy that armed defence. And, yes, Big A. D., I know you are going to want sources - On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society by Lt. Crossman - full text is available here - https://archive.org/stream/On_Killing/On_Killing_djvu.txt - references a large number of studies with supporting data. Also my number maybe off slightly as I am going from memory. The point I am making is that self-defence is right and a choice, each person needs to be respected for the choice.

Nothing of the above changes my personal choice to be prepared to defend myself and those in my orbit. I believe it is my civic and moral duty and personal responsibility to protect and defend myself and those around me from harm and danger. Nothing will change my belief and conviction.

Summary - I have met Big A.D. personally, like and respect him. He may not remember me, that is fine. The next we meet I will happily buy him a drink and consider him a friend even though I know we are diametrically opposed on many things politically and socially. And if perchance during that meeting we are put in position where we need to defend ourselves, I will very happily and without thought put myself in harms way to protect and defend him from any threats or dangers.

That is just the kind of person I am.

Thanks,

Because you Sir are the sheepdog, and why I urged everyone on page 11 to buy his books.

If not just read this little snippet (all but Silver Pauper), and understand the frustration the Sheepdog has to put up with when it comes to know all sheep.

http://mwkworks.com/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html

 

[Lovey80]

I asked you about 4 times before ref age restrictions and you would not answer the question, the reason you did not answer the question is because as soon as you give an age and set a "law" you become a "stateist" and you impose your beliefs on others, there has to be a cut off point and laws which cover society wide issues. Everyone's actions and decisions impact on other members of society. People do not live in bubbles which you seem to believe.

:lol: You clearly haven't paid attention to what I've said before on topics that are related to this (or what Yennus said when he succinctly answered your question earlier).

Societies having laws or social norms doesn't make you statist. Being born doesn't give you the same legal consequences and rights as an adult.

In the case of children the best judge of whether a given child has matured enough to understand and respect the rights of others and to safely handle property until the child deems themselves suitable is their guardians.

And don't forget that the judgement of wether that child's safety should also be done with a firearm is suitable for their guardians.....who should bear the responsibility for keeping them safe.

 

[Lovey80]

You pro Freedumb campainers do not seem to be able to look more than one step ahead, someone having firearms for "self defence" affects others. If the firearm could just kill the person who owned it or "bad guys" fair enough but it does not.

It is like people using mercury for gold extraction, why can't they do what they want on their own land? The thing is it gets into the water supply and poisons other people and the enviroment.

Your actions have consequences for others. For every legitimate act of self defence you would have the death of 5 other innocent people a s consequence.

And in 2016 if a miner poisons the water table there are consequences FOR THAT MINER. poisoning the drinking water of thousands of people to make profit and the minor chance that a bystander will get shot as a result of one defending themselves are hardly good comparisons to make and either way, blame the attacker for forcing someone to defend themselves with a gun not the defender.

 

[Lovey80]

All my comments ref knives being more dangerous and guns are sarcasm in response to raidiobirdman making silly statements, I was pulling the piss out of him. Thanks for agreeing with me on that point, radiobirdman take note of what lovely80 says. You are 100 perent correct in what you say about revolvers not having stoppages, same as a side by side shotgun for example. In 11 pages of posts why are you the only person to pick that up? That seems to suggest a complete lack of knowledge on behalf of EVERY other person posting pro gun posts and reinforces my point about the majority of people not having a competant level of skill/knowledge in relation to firearms.

Ref stoppages I have mainly used a browning hi-power 9mm, they are very prone to stoppages, also used a H&K, a lot nicer pistol and you do get less stoppages but they happen regularly. I had a browning semi-auto shotgun and stoppages were a regular occurance it. I have used M4's, SLRs, AR15s, steyers, AK47s etc and a lot of different belt fed maxhine guns, you get constant stoppages all day long and they are all kept immaculately clean.

Read the FIRST line of the FIRST article I found when you type in gun stoppages into your search engine.

"Pistol stoppages on the range are a common occurance"

www.officer.com/article/11443133/pistol/-stoppages-their-causes

The video Julie just posted is spot on the money, what he says is so funny is because it is true and it uses sarcasm to pull the piss out of the pro gun argument. Watch the link she provided to the whole clip

Why did I let myself get dragged back into this stupidity.......

99.999% of live ammunition stoppages are operator error and 99.999% of the stoppages you had "regularly" were also operator error.... as the content of your article outlines. At the range, pistol stoppages even among competition shooters, the vast majority come from them tweaking loads to gain an advantage, usually with modified weapons. Ie lowering the powder to the point where it just barely cycles the action with the lowest recoil possible. Great at home when they are testing loads firing into a barrel of sand, then they rock up to am IPSC comp and wonder why their weapon keeps stopping after 100 rounds or so.

I have fired all of those weapons you have and the amount of "live" ammunition stoppages I've had where it wasn't operator error I can count on one hand and all of them were bad primers/no powder jobies. Regardless, the minute chance a stoppage may occur in a lethal force encounter is not a reason to discourage a firearm but a reason to encourage training, range time, stoppage drills.... if you are serious enough about your safety to buy a pistol you should be serious enough to be proficient with it.

99.999% of stoppages were operator error? That is a huge call and I would say ignorant, all ammo used except for the shotgun were factory loads, there was no hitting the bottom of the magazines etc that causes stoppages. You also seem to assume all people would have a basic level of competance which is not the case in reality and why there are so many people who are killed in accidents.

I think you need to go back and actually read the article that YOU used to back up your point. It proves my point perfectly. Actually if you go past the first 'line' and read just the whole first sentence I think you'd wish that you hadn't used it.

Pistol stoppages on the range are a common occurrence, and happen when the shooter causes the pistol to stop operating in the manner for which it was designed. and you will find that current worlds best practices for stoppage drill involve hitting the magazine. The old Australian Army myth of rounds causing stoppages are really only relevant to tapping the mag on a magazine change (as opposed to a stoppage drill due to the weapon failing to function as intended which an empty mag is not). Go to any high end shooting instructor these days and you'll be taught tap-rack on a stoppage.

Why are you so intent in stopping idiots killing themselves in accidents? Guns are serious, I have no objection to safety courses, in fact should people be allowed to own a pistol for self protection I would be offering my services for training.

 

[yennus]

Welcome to the party Lovey80!

 

[Lovey80]

Welcome to the party Lovey80!

Thanks Yennus,

There is no doubt in my mind that Australia is a place, of all the places I've been, that you wouldn't consider high on the priority list to own a firearm. But to take that and act on it is to live in denial. To live in denial of the threats is as grossman put it in the exert above is a pay later scheme. Sure you may go through life and never need it, you may also go through life and never need your seat belt either. The point is threat is there, although it is unseen, it is most certainly there.

It's just that the one day you wished you had it/on in both cases could prove costly. If that day never comes then no harm done. I am yet to need either (in Australia) but be sure that I'll be wearing that seat belt tomorrow, and even though my "reasons" for owning a firearm are legitimate under current law, you better not enter my home with intent to do harm.

 

[bordsilver]

"Libertarian NSW senator David Leyonhjelm said the decision had put 800,000 firearms owners in the "deplorables basket", and would incite a rush to minor parties, as occurred at the recent Orange byelection in NSW."

Hopefully this rush continues

Change the party name back to Liberty Democracy Party and watch the numbers fall again The only reason the numbers increased for the LDP is because they changed the name to LIBERAL Democrat party, don't get me wrong it is a really good way to get more votes. Very deceptive and dishonest but I suppose it gets results

I reckon the LDP should change their name to the Worker's Party and adopt the same policy platform that they had. It's more Libertarian than the LDP's current one (but in their defence they are primarily a Classical Liberal party). Also the Liberal and Labor parties need to change their name given they aren't Liberal or don't actually support labour anymore. Completely deceptive and dishonest advertising.

 

[Lovey80]

Well the thread topic seemed to die out fast. Maybe Big A.D. and Newtosilver realising they were sheep has made them take stock?

 

[Newtosilver]

Well the thread topic seemed to die out fast. Maybe Big A.D. and Newtosilver realising they were sheep has made them take stock?

Maybe they realised you can't argue with stupid Also maybe they realise your chances of changing laws so you can carry a firearm for self defence in Australia are next to nil lol

 

[Lovey80]

The thread was about ownership, not carrying. There is a big jump between storing a gun in your home and carrying. But I guess you knew that and as all your other OT angles have been thoroughly debunked it's easy to see why you'd resort to the stupid comment.

 

[Newtosilver]

The thread was about ownership, not carrying. There is a big jump between storing a gun in your home and carrying. But I guess you knew that and as all your other OT angles have been thoroughly debunked it's easy to see why you'd resort to the stupid comment.

I hate to tell you this but my views are in line with the majority, you are a MINORITY, a very, very small minority, my comments are stupid? You seem pretty big on stupid

 

[fosinator]

The thread was about ownership, not carrying. There is a big jump between storing a gun in your home and carrying. But I guess you knew that and as all your other OT angles have been thoroughly debunked it's easy to see why you'd resort to the stupid comment.

I hate to tell you this but my views are in line with the majority, you are a MINORITY, a very, very small minority, my comments are stupid? You seem pretty big on stupid

In this thread it seems you are the MINORITY.Can you show me where the majority of the population agree with your view?

 

[yennus]

I think I found Newtosilver's polling sources

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_V_w-kDLbl8[/youtube]

 

[Newtosilver]

The thread was about ownership, not carrying. There is a big jump between storing a gun in your home and carrying. But I guess you knew that and as all your other OT angles have been thoroughly debunked it's easy to see why you'd resort to the stupid comment.

I hate to tell you this but my views are in line with the majority, you are a MINORITY, a very, very small minority, my comments are stupid? You seem pretty big on stupid

In this thread it seems you are the MINORITY.Can you show me where the majority of the population agree with your view?

Yeah you are right my views are in the minority in this thread, this is a right wing forum and I'ld expect that majority of the population agree with my view? The gun laws changed 20 years ago and are still going strong...... since they were introduced the number of mass shootings has gone through the floor.

 

[yennus]

... this is a right wing forum ...

 

[Newtosilver]

... this is a right wing forum ...

https://m.popkey.co/05e616/R5oL_f-maxage-0.gif

You know what that is kind of how I picture you when I think of you