Police Minister Rene Hidding publicly backed Tasmania

Questions about Tasmanian fun and ammunition laws. Tasmanian Firearms Act 1996.

Police Minister Rene Hidding publicly backed Tasmania

Post by MeccaOz » 10 Jun 2014, 8:57 pm

Police Minister Rene Hidding has publicly backed Service Tasmania after security surrounding its gun registration process was questioned.

A Launceston pistol club president proposed the one-stop shop for government services should be excised from the registration process.

The man, who suggested information about gun owners should be exposed to as few people as possible, made the comments after 14 firearms were stolen from a shooting club member's home at Newstead.

He believed gun registration should be handled exclusively by Tasmania Police as was previously the case.

However Mr Hidding dismissed the idea.

``Following close scrutiny on my part since becoming a minister I have confidence, as does Tasmania Police, in the security of the firearms registry and Service Tasmania's role in administering it,'' he said yesterday.

Mr Hidding has flagged tougher penalties for gun thieves and stricter firearm storage requirements but would not be drawn on the details.

The former government introduced a specific crime of stealing a firearm, which carries a maximum 21 years' jail.

The Examiner asked if the government was considering mandatory minimum jail sentences for gun theft or if it would make possession of a stolen firearm and/or attempted gun theft a criminal code offence.

Mr Hidding did not respond.
User avatar
MeccaOz
Warrant Officer C2
Warrant Officer C2
 
Posts: 1013
Western Australia

Re: POLICE Minister Rene Hidding publicly backed Tasmania

Post by WesleySnipes » 10 Jun 2014, 9:20 pm

"Mr Hidding did not respond."

What a surprise.

And believe it or not, the people who work for the police and the firearms registry aren't all angels, they're normal people. People who can be corrupted when given such sensitive information. We have had many cases of police corruption of various severities in the last few decades, I'm astounded that people actually believe the firearms registry is an impenetrable steel fortress that can't be accessed by the wrong people.
User avatar
WesleySnipes
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 140
New South Wales

Re: POLICE Minister Rene Hidding publicly backed Tasmania

Post by MeccaOz » 10 Jun 2014, 9:40 pm

WesleySnipes wrote:"Mr Hidding did not respond."

What a surprise.

And believe it or not, the people who work for the police and the firearms registry aren't all angels, they're normal people. People who can be corrupted when given such sensitive information. We have had many cases of police corruption of various severities in the last few decades, I'm astounded that people actually believe the firearms registry is an impenetrable steel fortress that can't be accessed by the wrong people.


Yeah I was thinking the same mate. Last week a different copper everyday on a different charge. From what I saw it ranged from one copper importing stuff they shouldnt have to incestuous paedophilia. So banging on about them being trustworthy is just not gunna fly.
User avatar
MeccaOz
Warrant Officer C2
Warrant Officer C2
 
Posts: 1013
Western Australia

Re: POLICE Minister Rene Hidding publicly backed Tasmania

Post by Shotfox » 11 Jun 2014, 7:36 am

We micro-chip our pets should we DNA our guns and keep that information on file? We keep hearing about STOLEN guns and im sure if the police were able to track the firearms used in drive bys and other crimes by bullet DNA (the markings left by the barrel) at least this would make credible the poor law abiding citizen who reported the guns stolen. Who knows, if we had a national register of gun DNA it may be a point in the right direction of fighting stolen guns?

My 2bob
Shotfox
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 192
New South Wales

Re: POLICE Minister Rene Hidding publicly backed Tasmania

Post by WesleySnipes » 11 Jun 2014, 9:46 am

Shotfox wrote:We micro-chip our pets should we DNA our guns and keep that information on file? We keep hearing about STOLEN guns and im sure if the police were able to track the firearms used in drive bys and other crimes by bullet DNA (the markings left by the barrel) at least this would make credible the poor law abiding citizen who reported the guns stolen. Who knows, if we had a national register of gun DNA it may be a point in the right direction of fighting stolen guns?

My 2bob


Or alternatively we could scrap wasting huge amounts of money on our firearm registry which clearly doesn't work and spend it on catching the criminals. The registry is redundant, a stolen firearm is a stolen firearm, having it registered makes no difference or helps in anyway.

The fact is the registry can also be leaked, as above, there is nothing stopping someone from leaking the information to some mates and then going to rob the place and steal X amount of guns. Police corruption in this country has been horrendous, and you would trust them knowing every single detail about your firearms, how many and where they are kept? If we had no registry the crims would have no idea who had what and where, and would take them a lot more time to single out victims, which would be very hard indeed.
User avatar
WesleySnipes
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 140
New South Wales

Re: POLICE Minister Rene Hidding publicly backed Tasmania

Post by MeccaOz » 11 Jun 2014, 9:52 am

WesleySnipes wrote:
Shotfox wrote:We micro-chip our pets should we DNA our guns and keep that information on file? We keep hearing about STOLEN guns and im sure if the police were able to track the firearms used in drive bys and other crimes by bullet DNA (the markings left by the barrel) at least this would make credible the poor law abiding citizen who reported the guns stolen. Who knows, if we had a national register of gun DNA it may be a point in the right direction of fighting stolen guns?

My 2bob


Or alternatively we could scrap wasting huge amounts of money on our firearm registry which clearly doesn't work and spend it on catching the criminals. The registry is redundant, a stolen firearm is a stolen firearm, having it registered makes no difference or helps in anyway.

The fact is the registry can also be leaked, as above, there is nothing stopping someone from leaking the information to some mates and then going to rob the place and steal X amount of guns. Police corruption in this country has been horrendous, and you would trust them knowing every single detail about your firearms, how many and where they are kept? If we had no registry the crims would have no idea who had what and where, and would take them a lot more time to single out victims, which would be very hard indeed.



+1 , WHAT HE SAID !
User avatar
MeccaOz
Warrant Officer C2
Warrant Officer C2
 
Posts: 1013
Western Australia

Re: POLICE Minister Rene Hidding publicly backed Tasmania

Post by Shotfox » 11 Jun 2014, 10:03 am

MeccaOz wrote:
WesleySnipes wrote:
Shotfox wrote:We micro-chip our pets should we DNA our guns and keep that information on file? We keep hearing about STOLEN guns and im sure if the police were able to track the firearms used in drive bys and other crimes by bullet DNA (the markings left by the barrel) at least this would make credible the poor law abiding citizen who reported the guns stolen. Who knows, if we had a national register of gun DNA it may be a point in the right direction of fighting stolen guns?

My 2bob


Or alternatively we could scrap wasting huge amounts of money on our firearm registry which clearly doesn't work and spend it on catching the criminals. The registry is redundant, a stolen firearm is a stolen firearm, having it registered makes no difference or helps in anyway.

The fact is the registry can also be leaked, as above, there is nothing stopping someone from leaking the information to some mates and then going to rob the place and steal X amount of guns. Police corruption in this country has been horrendous, and you would trust them knowing every single detail about your firearms, how many and where they are kept? If we had no registry the crims would have no idea who had what and where, and would take them a lot more time to single out victims, which would be very hard indeed.



+1 , WHAT HE SAID !

Mabey so. However A system of firearm control is probably better than no system. Mabey the registry should have active involvement with shooters and shooting organisations on a grass roots level and get more productive feedback on gun control. Should there be no registry or registration of firearms I would like to hear your alternative. What we have is a frustrating buracratic system but it does have merit so it needs to evolve with the changing needs of shooters and the community alike, working smarter is the key on saving money and with our input and ideas may just save a life one day.
Shotfox
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 192
New South Wales

Re: POLICE Minister Rene Hidding publicly backed Tasmania

Post by WesleySnipes » 11 Jun 2014, 10:38 am

No I don't think firearms should be registered, because it achieves nothing. I can guarantee criminals don't register their guns when they buy, or choose to go get a firearms licence before they go murder someone. That's not how it works, all the registry does is inefficiently monitor the people who don't need to be monitored, the people jumping through the hoops for the "privilege" of owning firearms will not be committing crimes with them. And I say inefficiently because they have even acknowledged they cannot keep track of registered firearms and they don't even know how many legal firearms are held by private citizens. So we're paying our tax money to have our names, address and property listed onto a 'secure' database which definitely isn't secure when the number of firearms theft continues at a large rate. The 1996 buyback did not lower firearms homicide, it did not lower the overall amount of suicide, so what has it done to make us safe? I was only 2 years old at the time but I can assure you I wish I didn't live in a police state that assumes I am a criminal if I choose to own firearms, and say they need to crack down tougher on LAFO's when criminals continue to run around popping each other and innocent people with their unregistered firearms that were meant to be registered 18 years ago.

And no, I don't believe a system of 'control' is better than nothing. If you think it's a frustrating bureaucratic system, it will only get worse.
User avatar
WesleySnipes
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 140
New South Wales

Re: POLICE Minister Rene Hidding publicly backed Tasmania

Post by Shotfox » 11 Jun 2014, 11:20 am

You are correct - Criminals dont register their guns or get a licence in fact. So you would allow anyone to get a licence with no qualification, criteria or suitabilty to own a firearm and you are more monitered when you drive your car down the street but I bet you have a drivers licence. Is driving a privilage?.There is possibly more we can do than just registering a firearm and if we do go to greater additional lengths such as barrel DNA you never know, we may just start getting on top of gun tracking and this is only one idea which could save money and help mitigate firearm theft and crime. It wont solve the problem , never said it would, but i feel there is more to be done. The 96 buy back was a an equivilant of the "pink roof bats " scheme of today and buracrats will always come up with stupid ideas hence why grass roots consultation is needed to avoid such problems evolving. If you choose to own a firearm and you pass the criteria how do you assume youself a criminal? Mabey thats why there is paranoia of a police state and if you do not beleive that some control is better than nothing mabey you should tell that to the parents of Sandyhook primary school.
Shotfox
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 192
New South Wales

Re: POLICE Minister Rene Hidding publicly backed Tasmania

Post by WesleySnipes » 11 Jun 2014, 11:46 am

Shotfox wrote:You are correct - Criminals dont register their guns or get a licence in fact. So you would allow anyone to get a licence with no qualification, criteria or suitabilty to own a firearm and you are more monitered when you drive your car down the street but I bet you have a drivers licence. Is driving a privilage?.There is possibly more we can do than just registering a firearm and if we do go to greater additional lengths such as barrel DNA you never know, we may just start getting on top of gun tracking and this is only one idea which could save money and help mitigate firearm theft and crime. It wont solve the problem , never said it would, but i feel there is more to be done. The 96 buy back was a an equivilant of the "pink roof bats " scheme of today and buracrats will always come up with stupid ideas hence why grass roots consultation is needed to avoid such problems evolving. If you choose to own a firearm and you pass the criteria how do you assume youself a criminal? Mabey thats why there is paranoia of a police state and if you do not beleive that some control is better than nothing mabey you should tell that to the parents of Sandyhook primary school.


How do I assume I'm a criminal for choosing to own firearms? I don't, the government does. As far as I'm aware it is innocent until proven guilty, I should not have to prove to the government that I am worthy of owning one, they should have to prove to me why I am not. That's usually the way it goes in a free society. And driving a car isn't a right, it's a privilege. I don't care what my government says, I have the right to protect my family and continue the culture I was brought up in, and If I need an evil firearm to do so then so be it.

Ahhh the old Sandyhook parents card. Grow up, you should know better. You know as well as I do, even if there was firearms registration there is no way a mentally insane person such as Adam Lanza could have been stopped by such laws. They were his own mother's legally owned firearms, who he slaughtered so he could get them, shooting her 4 times with a .22 long rifle. Now just think about that for a minute, do you honestly think that a person who is willing to slaughter his own mother to get the keys to her safe, and then go and slaughter another 26 people would of been stopped by ANY law? Because he already committed 27 counts of first degree murder, I doubt he even considered breaking a firearms theft law. And you know what? I'm kind of glad he did it that way, a child who is known to have frequented forums where the general topic was mass murder and a serious noted case of mental illness going untreated, I'm glad he didn't make a bomb and kill more, as it's far easier and a heck of a lot more effective at taking huge amounts of life. The Oklahoma bombing were responsible for 168 deaths and over 650 injured, 19 of them children in a day care. Please tell me how much you care about them because all I seem to hear from people like you is what we should do about guns which are a tiny fraction of the problem, where are the calls to ban fertiliser and other bomb making components? There is nothing that could of prevented either of these incidents. You cannot wave your magical ban stick and ban insanity. I assume you are a mentally capable and rational human being, use your head.
User avatar
WesleySnipes
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 140
New South Wales

Re: Police Minister Rene Hidding publicly backed Tasmania

Post by Shotfox » 11 Jun 2014, 12:47 pm

Again you are correct but to buy a gun and then not be able to to get a licence is putting the horse before the cart dont you think. If you dont pass the criteria you dont get a licence that is fact no matter what you think even if you dont care what the goverment says , and im glad its hard to get that licence in the culture you were brought up in. NO you wont stop nutters getting guns or bombs or flying planes into buildings either. (and yes there was a ban on fertiliser amounts you could legally purchase after Oklahoma). Its not what you should do about guns or the tiny fractions, its about mitagating gun crime and how we do that more effectively. What would be some effective measures that may be better than just registration and burratic hand ball that is the magical ban stick you talk about. Thats why mental capabilities and human rational thinks outside the boundaries to solve problems and work together to achive desired outcomes for all. Thats using my head.
Shotfox
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 192
New South Wales

Re: POLICE Minister Rene Hidding publicly backed Tasmania

Post by ailar » 11 Jun 2014, 12:56 pm

Shotfox wrote:We micro-chip our pets should we DNA our guns and keep that information on file? We keep hearing about STOLEN guns and im sure if the police were able to track the firearms used in drive bys and other crimes by bullet DNA (the markings left by the barrel) at least this would make credible the poor law abiding citizen who reported the guns stolen. Who knows, if we had a national register of gun DNA it may be a point in the right direction of fighting stolen guns?


Something like those micro data dots they spray on stuff to track it maybe?
User avatar
ailar
Recruit
Recruit
 
Posts: 48
Tasmania

Re: POLICE Minister Rene Hidding publicly backed Tasmania

Post by pmomd » 11 Jun 2014, 12:59 pm

ailar wrote:Something like those micro data dots they spray on stuff to track it maybe?


I don't think anyone's going to want that.

"micro" is a pretty generous description from what I've seen. The dots are in like a clear coat that gets sprays on, so you'd have a few thumbprint size marks of clear coat on all the parts of the gun :?

The actual marks once sprayed are a decent size. like a 10c - 20c coin.
CZ 550 Varmint in .308 Winchester.
Ruger Hawkeye in 30-06 Springfield.
User avatar
pmomd
Private
Private
 
Posts: 70
Western Australia

Re: Police Minister Rene Hidding publicly backed Tasmania

Post by WesleySnipes » 11 Jun 2014, 1:18 pm

Shotfox wrote:Again you are correct but to buy a gun and then not be able to to get a licence is putting the horse before the cart dont you think. If you dont pass the criteria you dont get a licence that is fact no matter what you think even if you dont care what the goverment says , and im glad its hard to get that licence in the culture you were brought up in. NO you wont stop nutters getting guns or bombs or flying planes into buildings either. (and yes there was a ban on fertiliser amounts you could legally purchase after Oklahoma). Its not what you should do about guns or the tiny fractions, its about mitagating gun crime and how we do that more effectively. What would be some effective measures that may be better than just registration and burratic hand ball that is the magical ban stick you talk about. Thats why mental capabilities and human rational thinks outside the boundaries to solve problems and work together to achive desired outcomes for all. Thats using my head.


Your first sentence doesn't make a lot of sense, because it has nothing do with what I said but I'll try my best to answer it. I believe there should be a system where before you can purchase a firearm, the government can go through all realistic paths and try to prove you aren't capable of owning one, much like a licencing system. Not the other way around. But I do not believe that if you have been proven to be able to own a firearm, there should be registration, and there should be no redundant wait times like our PTA system which achieve nothing and burns a massive hole in tax payer's pockets.

And the culture I was brought up in recognises that a firearm is a tool that can be used appropriately or misused, just like any other tool. If you're mucking around with it loaded and blow someone's face off that is obvious misuse, and they will more likely than not blame it on the firearm, and how 'easy' they are to get rather than on the stupidity of the perpetrator. Same with criminals, whether you like it or not they will always get their hands on illegal firearms and other weapons, how about just for a change we go after them and not the bloke down the road that likes to go target shooting as a hobby or the firearm he possesses. If you find this an unusual concept concept than that's not my problem.

I can't help but find your statement about rational thinking humorous. To me it is quite obvious our policies on firearms and crime in general are so hopelessly ineffective in curbing any amount of gun crime, even if these criminals were caught, and that's a big if because it rarely happens, I doubt the penalties would be fitting of the crime. If you thought rationally it would also be quite obvious that the demographic the government continues to piledrive is the demographic that doesn't cause the problems, and argues that if they could take more measures on the law abiding it would somehow correlate to the activity of criminals? How rational is that? I'm not like most of the media loving drones who persistently blame an inanimate object for the wrongdoings of human beings, and am astounded when people honestly believe registration and other methods might still work when history has proven they haven't.
User avatar
WesleySnipes
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 140
New South Wales

Re: Police Minister Rene Hidding publicly backed Tasmania

Post by Shotfox » 11 Jun 2014, 1:24 pm

And thats why we should look at ways to better make the system work. I agree the current system sux but lets work on a better one.
Shotfox
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 192
New South Wales

Re: Police Minister Rene Hidding publicly backed Tasmania

Post by WesleySnipes » 11 Jun 2014, 1:33 pm

Shotfox wrote:And thats why we should look at ways to better make the system work. I agree the current system sux but lets work on a better one.


And what would you suggest? Because I struggle to see how bringing up Sandyhook and then saying that you agree on how no laws would of affected the insane perpetrator or stopped the event is relevant.
User avatar
WesleySnipes
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 140
New South Wales

Re: POLICE Minister Rene Hidding publicly backed Tasmania

Post by Shotfox » 11 Jun 2014, 1:38 pm

pmomd wrote:
ailar wrote:Something like those micro data dots they spray on stuff to track it maybe?


I don't think anyone's going to want that.

"micro" is a pretty generous description from what I've seen. The dots are in like a clear coat that gets sprays on, so you'd have a few thumbprint size marks of clear coat on all the parts of the gun :?

The actual marks once sprayed are a decent size. like a 10c - 20c coin.


No No not that kind of spray dot DNA. What I mean is - Every new gun that either comes into the country or is sold by a dealer is fired once before it is handed to the new owner. The barrel is photgraphed inside and so is the bullet that came out of the barrel. The markings on both match that particular gun and recorded. You know like CSI stuff. That way if a gun is retrieved by police in criminal land it is easier to back track where it came from and who owned it. This also makes credible any stories of stolen firearms or illegilly traded firearms. Yes I know barrels can be swapped bla bla bla but it would be a start in the right direction I feel.
Shotfox
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 192
New South Wales

Re: Police Minister Rene Hidding publicly backed Tasmania

Post by Shotfox » 11 Jun 2014, 1:44 pm

WesleySnipes wrote:
Shotfox wrote:And thats why we should look at ways to better make the system work. I agree the current system sux but lets work on a better one.


And what would you suggest? Because I struggle to see how bringing up Sandyhook and then saying that you agree on how no laws would of affected the insane perpetrator or stopped the event is relevant.


okay back to square one - what I suggest is along with registrations we DNA our guns for all the above reasons (This is only a suggestion). Again - It wont stop nutters but if the techonology is there we should use it and again, along with shooting associations, shooters lets work with the police and registry at a grass roots level to improve our sport and have better communication and outcomes not only for shooters but the community at large.
Shotfox
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 192
New South Wales

Re: Police Minister Rene Hidding publicly backed Tasmania

Post by 1290 » 11 Jun 2014, 2:25 pm

:? :lol:
User avatar
1290
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1336
Victoria

Re: POLICE Minister Rene Hidding publicly backed Tasmania

Post by Octane » 11 Jun 2014, 2:43 pm

Shotfox wrote:What I mean is - Every new gun that either comes into the country or is sold by a dealer is fired once before it is handed to the new owner. The barrel is photgraphed inside and so is the bullet that came out of the barrel. The markings on both match that particular gun and recorded. You know like CSI stuff.


You happy to pay for all that labour on top of everything you buy? :?
User avatar
Octane
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 104
Victoria

Re: Police Minister Rene Hidding publicly backed Tasmania

Post by Shotfox » 11 Jun 2014, 3:19 pm

and you think you aint paying now?
Shotfox
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 192
New South Wales

Re: Police Minister Rene Hidding publicly backed Tasmania

Post by WesleySnipes » 12 Jun 2014, 12:29 pm

That's not the point, would you like to pay for more useless labour that will do nothing to curb gun crime, as I said, criminals will not purchase their firearms legally so it achieves as much as registration does.

I think what I'm trying to get across is, when you have thousands of guns coming to the country via smuggling every year eg. when bikie gangs were shipping in Glock pistols in the thousands, there is no point in spending huge amounts of money on something that won't make a difference.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-or ... 6747465235

Just a quick example, and that's just the ones they know about. Considering how many are slipping through it's not hard to imagine there are probably 100's of shipments with illegal arms.
User avatar
WesleySnipes
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 140
New South Wales

Re: Police Minister Rene Hidding publicly backed Tasmania

Post by Shotfox » 12 Jun 2014, 12:44 pm

Then what is the point.? Sticking our heads in the sand approach will do nothing to curb gun crime as we need to look at ways, effective ways in dealing with the problem and this is only one idea which over time I think would make some inroads. Yes it may add cost to gun registrations but we are not up in arms when green slip prices hit the roof each and every year with car rego. There will always be nutters and illegal dealings in everything but if the technology is available and we can do this then moving forward with a focus is better than standing still
Shotfox
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 192
New South Wales

Re: Police Minister Rene Hidding publicly backed Tasmania

Post by Warrigul » 12 Jun 2014, 1:30 pm

Shotfox wrote:
WesleySnipes wrote:
Shotfox wrote:And thats why we should look at ways to better make the system work. I agree the current system sux but lets work on a better one.


And what would you suggest? Because I struggle to see how bringing up Sandyhook and then saying that you agree on how no laws would of affected the insane perpetrator or stopped the event is relevant.


okay back to square one - what I suggest is along with registrations we DNA our guns for all the above reasons (This is only a suggestion). Again - It wont stop nutters but if the techonology is there we should use it and again, along with shooting associations, shooters lets work with the police and registry at a grass roots level to improve our sport and have better communication and outcomes not only for shooters but the community at large.


So you have gone to all lengths to try and justify further controls and then trot this statement out effectively saying it won't stop nutters(and lets face it without exception every perp of mass shootings has been proven mentally deranged).

Honestly, Canada dropped registration as it was proven to be a waste of time.

To drag up the old Port Arthur, we had perfectly adequete laws at the time:
1: he was unlicenced
2: one firearm was last recorded as belonging to the NSW Police and having been destroyed and the other didn't officially exist
3: a gunsmith, somewhere, illegally worked on the main semi auto used as it had been presented to at least one dealer for repair and he had knocked the job back because Martin Bryant couldn't produce a licence (oh how things would be different today if the Police had been notified).
4: A gun dealer sold him ammunition without seeing a licence(although he claims he saw one and was backed up by a mate in the shop at the time- good on ya mate)

Any one of the last three points should have tripped him up and prevented the massacre but it didn't and it doesn't matter how many extra laws you implement these tragic events will still occur.

FFS.
Warrigul
Warrant Officer C2
Warrant Officer C2
 
Posts: 1103
-

Re: Police Minister Rene Hidding publicly backed Tasmania

Post by Warrigul » 12 Jun 2014, 1:33 pm

Shotfox wrote:Then what is the point.? Sticking our heads in the sand approach will do nothing to curb gun crime as we need to look at ways, effective ways in dealing with the problem and this is only one idea which over time I think would make some inroads. Yes it may add cost to gun registrations but we are not up in arms when green slip prices hit the roof each and every year with car rego. There will always be nutters and illegal dealings in everything but if the technology is available and we can do this then moving forward with a focus is better than standing still


Once again.......................


So by your own admission it may not make any difference at all but you want us to go ahead and do it anyway so a few anti gunners can feel good about themselves at the expense of law abiding firearm owners?

Geez
Last edited by Warrigul on 12 Jun 2014, 1:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Warrigul
Warrant Officer C2
Warrant Officer C2
 
Posts: 1103
-

Re: Police Minister Rene Hidding publicly backed Tasmania

Post by 1290 » 12 Jun 2014, 1:33 pm

OK shotfox, you've had your say, now leave it, walk away....I was going to restrain myself but no, its not a good idea, it is juvenile in its conception and utterly ridiculous. ONLY the commie greentard gungrabbers would suggest such an idea, and as an alternative to full confiscation.

No one entity can be trusted with firearm owners person, identifying, 'security' data, including detailed firearm characteristics.....there are at least 90,000 consumer firearms imported each year as well as the existing stock of at least 5, maybe 10 MILLION firearms in the country.

Regain your sanity/turn off CNN, channel 7 etc; crime rates, homicides rate have little to do with firearm ownership rates. period. When you consider crime globally, it comes into perspective;
There is zero correlation between homicide and firearm ownership.

The way it is I'm not really happy with my details, name, address, storage method -report-, firearm number,type, chambering etc being available to not only all Police departments Australia wide but INTERNATIONALLY via Interpol...
User avatar
1290
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1336
Victoria

Re: Police Minister Rene Hidding publicly backed Tasmania

Post by Shotfox » 12 Jun 2014, 2:15 pm

ok my head is in the sand to
Shotfox
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 192
New South Wales

Re: Police Minister Rene Hidding publicly backed Tasmania

Post by MeccaOz » 12 Jun 2014, 2:45 pm

Shotfox wrote:ok my head is in the sand to


It's not a case of putting heads in sand mate, it's that at every turn we are vilified. I for one Am not a firearm criminal. I have never raised a gun in anger at a person and im no more a "Brazzen killer" for owning a gun. PLUS I hate having to fork out dollar after dollar on s**t that has been proven not work all because some wanker duped the media into portraying us all as nutters.
User avatar
MeccaOz
Warrant Officer C2
Warrant Officer C2
 
Posts: 1013
Western Australia

Re: Police Minister Rene Hidding publicly backed Tasmania

Post by WesleySnipes » 12 Jun 2014, 6:01 pm

Shotfox wrote:ok my head is in the sand to


As everyone else has said, it's not a case about sticking our heads in the sand.

Warrigul, 1290 and myself specifically pointed out several times how you go to extreme lengths to put more implements in place to curb gun crime, and then admit it will have no effect on gun crime... I don't get it?

So essentially you want MORE red tape and to spend MORE money on something you have already admitted won't work. In my eyes any criminal who picks up a gun with evil intent is a nutter, not just mass murderers.

Again, 1290 has pointed out in several threads, correlation DOES NOT equal causation. Firearm ownerships have nothing to do with firearms homicide, in fact I think homicide is a pretty good indication of the social disparity and unhappiness that a country is suffering, nothing more.
User avatar
WesleySnipes
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 140
New South Wales


Back to top
 
Return to Tasmanian gun laws