Martin Place Terrorist did NOT hold Firearms licence

[cavok]

You Sir are obviously not a Liberal supporter, it's not that complex, as I said earlier, leaders of all parties are given information that is incorrect by many, for reasons best know to those who provide the information.

Mr Abbott did not open his mouth to far, he said what he believed to be correct, based on information provided.

Canberra is full of decent people, the same as you and I.

[sbd3927]

I don't support any of the mongrels, of any ilk.

Mr Abbot is an exemplary version of opening his trap and then sticking to it regardless of the consequences or subsequent advice/proof. This was only a minor reinforcement. The flip side is Ms Gillard who managed to perform a 180 degree backflip on several election platforms within record time of "achieving" office.

I am thinking in particular of his and Turnbull's fully costed, faster, cheaper, sooner NBN. For which the evidence is thick on the ground that they had barely any idea of the cost, has taken 15mths to sort out the Telstra contract (as industry experts said it would), is barely cheaper than the original (flawed) version, and is well on track to be proven it will come nowhere near their 2016 target. Now that's a topic I've followed nearly daily for the past 3-4 years.

It's not as complex as Liberal supporter or not, it's a simple as politicians should be held accountable for their utterances. All of them. It's not just a simple mistake, often their remarks have direct and immediate efffect on the economy/market/dollar.
As for their promises, core or otherwise, if they are elected on a promise/platform and decide to abandon it, then it should be back to the polls.

I'm sure there are decent people in Canberra, but I doubt any of them are in politics.

[cavok]

I don't support any of the mongrels, of any ilk.
Mr Abbot is an exemplary version of opening his trap and then sticking to it regardless of the consequences or subsequent advice/proof. This was only a minor reinforcement. The flip side is Ms Gillard who managed to perform a 180 degree backflip on several election platforms within record time of "achieving" office.

I am thinking in particular of his and Turnbull's fully costed, faster, cheaper, sooner NBN. For which the evidence is thick on the ground that they had barely any idea of the cost, has taken 15mths to sort out the Telstra contract (as industry experts said it would), is barely cheaper than the original (flawed) version, and is well on track to be proven it will come nowhere near their 2016 target. Now that's a topic I've followed nearly daily for the past 3-4 years.

It's not as complex as Liberal supporter or not, it's a simple as politicians should be held accountable for their utterances. All of them. It's not just a simple mistake, often their remarks have direct and immediate efffect on the economy/market/dollar.
As for their promises, core or otherwise, if they are elected on a promise/platform and decide to abandon it, then it should be back to the polls.

I'm sure there are decent people in Canberra, but I doubt any of them are in politics.

Well in our system we all need to support someone, we all need to vote, that's our system.

[RoginaJack]

Probably none of the above, what could have happened is that the "idiot" who held the hostages was a security guard some years ago, his name could have been on some security register, which in haste by authorities could have shown up as being a licenced gun owner, hence as people where trying to provide out Prime Minister with quick ownership details, someone forgot to double/triple check facts, or miss read an entry, hence Mr Abbott was provided with wrong information. Mr Abbott even as prime minister is not privy to our records, he relied on wrong information, NOT his fault, let him alone, better than any Labor minister, who would have been given exactly the same wrong information.

Don't agree and I'm not talking about "what could have happened" or "haste by authorities could have shown up..." or "quick ownership details.." and all the other excuses or scenarios.

What I'm talking about is that the Prime Minister was given incorrect and misleading information on a relative straight forward, routine inquiry. Fortunately, this time we didn't go to war over it

Remember, Politicians are in office for 4 years but public servants are in office for life. There are far too many public servants pushing their own political agendas for what ever reasons.

And all of my previous points are very relevant!

Sorry for late reply but phone and internet been out due to the storms.

[huccl]

You Sir are obviously not a Liberal supporter, it's not that complex, as I said earlier, leaders of all parties are given information that is incorrect by many, for reasons best know to those who provide the information.

You obviously are a Liberal supporter and IMO you're too quick to defend them regardless of the situation.

Blind support/defence of something is never good. There is no harm in admitting a mistake was made. You don't always have to assign blame to someone else.

Just an observation, opinion here...

[ebr love]

You Sir are obviously not a Liberal supporter

I'm with Huccl's above post.

Whether or not sbd3927 is a Liberal supporter or not has nothing to do with the accuracy of his previous comments or validity of his opinions.

[cavok]

Totally agree with the 2 above posts, the political persuasions of a party are not in question, all I was referring to was a tone of putting down our prime minister because of his party. He was given crap information, he replied, he followed up with the correction.

When speaking about any prime minister, polite is good, I find many bag a party for no reason other than they can.

I am responsible for what I write, I am unable to influence how what I have written is interpreted.

[Point223]

Tony Abbot - No Mr, No his Highness.. Plain and simple Abbot is a stupid dickwad!

[cavok]

Tony Abbot - No Mr, No his Highness.. Plain and simple Abbot is a stupid dickwad!

A very informative post, and your preference is? This post was about the Martin Place incident, not sure the idiot who staged it was any type of terrorist, but very sure he was, past tense, and idiot. So this is where we see your preference in leaders and type of government. Thanks in advance.

[Point223]

Hmm... How about anyone but Tony.

[cavok]

Hmm... How about anyone but Tony.

OK, you have the job, now your policies are what? You mean anyone but Tony Abbott, but still from within the liberal party, yes?
Another question, what exactly makes Mr Abbott a D******d. What ever that is.

[nords]

Rick Mazza for Prime Minister?

[Aussier]

He'd probably be happy to move to ACT and away from the WA gun laws!

[T_M]

It sounds like the AFP need to get their act together. They left plastic explosives at Sydney airport by mistake and now they can't do something as simple as lookup a firearm registry to see if someone is on it. The live media coverage and PM commentary of a hostage situation seemed really inappropriate.

[sbd3927]

Totally agree with the 2 above posts, the political persuasions of a party are not in question, all I was referring to was a tone of putting down our prime minister because of his party. .

In fact if you do a ctrl-f search on the thread, the first posts to mention either Liberal or Labor parties, have both been Cavok's.

If you reread the thread noone has blamed the PM because of his party. Everyone else has commented directly on him only. We don't have an inside line to Parliament house, or an unwavering belief in the party line. We simply judge from what is presented to us by the media (shoved down our throats, especially rubbish like "the PM's standing by as the situation unfolds..." )

As to credibility, if you had a letter advising you on firearm storage or any other legal issue, from the Federal Police, and a letter stating the same from Mr. Abbot. Which would be of use in a court of law in your defence if the information turned out to be inaccurate?
I'll retain the belief the FP were made scapegoats for the PM's mouth.

Well in our system we all need to support someone, we all need to vote, that's our system.

All the parties have members trying their best in a pathetic system. They also have members that should never be allowed in any significant positions, and others that should be locked up outright.
What can you expect from a system where "we all need to vote" leads to "I vote for the hottest candidate" "I don't like him, his eyes are too close together" and finally "My families always voted for ___" I heard those (and worse) on the radio few weeks ago for the Vic election.
Hurrah, we have a great democracy, voters that understand the issues and review the policies of each of the parties and independents, then make an informed decision.... ROFPML

Here's what might have been said for the Siege review...
Sir Humphrey Appleby: And to that end, I recommend that we set up an interdepartmental committee with fairly broad terms of reference so that at the end of the day we'll be in the position to think through the various implications and arrive at a decision based on long-term considerations rather than rush prematurely into precipitate and possibly ill-conceived action which might well have unforeseen repercussions.
James Hacker: You mean no. -Yes Minister

[North East]

They didn't hold a firearms licence...who would have thought. Wake up.

[cavok]

Totally agree with the 2 above posts, the political persuasions of a party are not in question, all I was referring to was a tone of putting down our prime minister because of his party. .

In fact if you do a ctrl-f search on the thread, the first posts to mention either Liberal or Labor parties, have both been Cavok's.

If you reread the thread noone has blamed the PM because of his party. Everyone else has commented directly on him only. We don't have an inside line to Parliament house, or an unwavering belief in the party line. We simply judge from what is presented to us by the media (shoved down our throats, especially rubbish like "the PM's standing by as the situation unfolds..." )

As to credibility, if you had a letter advising you on firearm storage or any other legal issue, from the Federal Police, and a letter stating the same from Mr. Abbot. Which would be of use in a court of law in your defence if the information turned out to be inaccurate?
I'll retain the belief the FP were made scapegoats for the PM's mouth.

Well in our system we all need to support someone, we all need to vote, that's our system.

All the parties have members trying their best in a pathetic system. They also have members that should never be allowed in any significant positions, and others that should be locked up outright.
What can you expect from a system where "we all need to vote" leads to "I vote for the hottest candidate" "I don't like him, his eyes are too close together" and finally "My families always voted for ___" I heard those (and worse) on the radio few weeks ago for the Vic election.
Hurrah, we have a great democracy, voters that understand the issues and review the policies of each of the parties and independents, then make an informed decision.... ROFPML

Here's what might have been said for the Siege review...
Sir Humphrey Appleby: And to that end, I recommend that we set up an interdepartmental committee with fairly broad terms of reference so that at the end of the day we'll be in the position to think through the various implications and arrive at a decision based on long-term considerations rather than rush prematurely into precipitate and possibly ill-conceived action which might well have unforeseen repercussions.
James Hacker: You mean no. -Yes Minister

very well written, to the uninitiated it does seen impressive, "yes minister" bloody poms, your post Leeds all astray. Cavok was the culprit, was the first to introduce politics, it all that persons fault. I'm sorry what was it you were saying? We have a system that is part of our constitution, voting, if you want a popular uprising, it won't happen, democracy at work. Your really are making it difficult to establish what the hell you want, but keep at it, in time all will become clear. Anarchy, yes?

[sbd3927]

your post Leeds all astray.

Feel free to parse it into the three sections if it "Leeds" you to a better understanding. Hint, each section starts with a quote, and only the third is entertaining. Paragraphs are usually sufficient, but you can pretend there's three posts if it helps.

Then if you want to address something, focus on the first and acknowledge noone was picking on your precious party, and kindly don't jump down peoples throats about it. BTW as for respecting the position of glorious leeder... Respect is earned, not given by default
Apparently I am now an anarchist as well as a non-Liberal supporter? I wonder which is worse?

The Yes Minister quote was simply a bit of relevant humour for the other people reading this thread, not sure how you managed to get "bloody poms" out of that.

[second point, see it's in a paragraph of its own?]
Just because a system exists, doesn't make it right. I was actually looking for the Yes Minister quote where the professor wants to introduce democracy at the burrow, then street level. Something along the lines of no politician will alter the system the placed him in power.
{found it!} Jim concludes that the nation is not ready for total democracy. Maybe the next century...or the one after that.http://www.yes-minister.com/ypmseas2b.htm

[Title_II]

Just saw an example of misleading media on Ch 7 Sydney concerning "private citizens carrying firearms for self protection" without one sensible comment being made,

1. "We don't want to go back to the future." Don't know what he meant by that.
2. "Lunatics walking the streets armed to the teeth."
3. "Do we want A Shoot Out in the Ok Corral."
4. Some crap about Martin Bryant.......

I would've thought that if you are allowed to carry a concealed firearm (as in certain US states), a certain level of training is required.

I know that I would feel a lot safer wandering Sydney streets for my doctors appointments knowing that there were trained citizens carrying a concealed firearm.

I'm disabled and can't do what normal people might be able to do, like run away or bolt for an open door. I'd be the one trying to belt a crim with my walking sticks!

Before people have a caniption, where I live Police don't always get to you in 2 mins and Australia has changed enormously in the last 40 years and not for the better.

I fully support trained citizens carrying in this day and age.

There are 50 states in the US (not 54 like Obama said), and from a practical standpoint, ordinary Citizens can carry in 47 of them. New Jersey, Maryland, and Hawaii are out, but Hawaii just lost a court case and is pending. There are also parts of NY and CA that don't like to issue (CA just lost a similar court case and that will be over).

Maybe you like the idea, maybe you don't. Maybe you think it reduces crime, maybe it doesn't. One thing is for sure. It doesn't cause any problems. Contrary to popular belief, legal carriers don't just flip out and end arguments with a gun. It simply doesn't happen. Could you find one example? I'm sure you could. But somebody legally carrying a gun is safer and less likely to commit a crime than any other Citizen, including the police.

I found an extreme example in a friend of mine. One day he said to me, "Title 2, you didn't know me 10 years ago. I was a real SOB and didn't take crap from anybody." I asked, "Really? I would have never expected that." He responded, "The day I started carrying I knew that was over."

In my Commonwealth, 10% of the people 21 or over carry guns. Anywhere you go, you are surrounded by guns. Never a problem.

I would say about half of states have some sort of training requirement. The Great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has not training requirement. And despite the stats you may see about Florida, it is likely we have the most people carrying of any state, 2014 will be over 1 million. With a total population of 13 million (including under 21). Heck, we have 750,000 people in the woods on the first day of Deer Season, they even close businesses and schools in much of the Commonwealth

[Westy]

Sadly title_II we have people like Cavok running the country who have little to no idea how to do so !!!And so the greater good is replaced with the good of the Drug f***ed assholes who driven by the media present a load of distorted facts which then the politicians run s**t scared away, while trying to win a political popularity contest every 3-4 years!!!We the innocent victims are then asked to vote for some second rate broken down " BUM" to then lead this once great nation!!!!

Sad truth is were f***ed and we have now reached the point of no return sadly!!!!!
Terrorisum will continue to rise in this country while politicians sit idlely by and hope to increase their pay packets and entitlements at the Tax payers expense!!!
If this was a Business we would have been broke years ago and the managers sacked immediately!!!

ohhhhhhh that's right we are broke and Joe hocky is hiding in shame while Rudd Hawk Gillard Howard and the elite club are free to go about the world on our Dime to manage or mismanage their lives and chime in at every opportunity they can!!!

Great system we have here, When did the lunatics start RUNNING THE ASYLIUM???

MERRY f***ing Christmas TO ALL

[bluerob]

There are 50 states in the US (not 54 like Obama said), and from a practical standpoint, ordinary Citizens can carry in 47 of them. New Jersey, Maryland, and Hawaii are out, but Hawaii just lost a court case and is pending. There are also parts of NY and CA that don't like to issue (CA just lost a similar court case and that will be over).

Maybe you like the idea, maybe you don't. Maybe you think it reduces crime, maybe it doesn't. One thing is for sure. It doesn't cause any problems. Contrary to popular belief, legal carriers don't just flip out and end arguments with a gun. It simply doesn't happen. Could you find one example? I'm sure you could. But somebody legally carrying a gun is safer and less likely to commit a crime than any other Citizen, including the police.

I found an extreme example in a friend of mine. One day he said to me, "Title 2, you didn't know me 10 years ago. I was a real SOB and didn't take crap from anybody." I asked, "Really? I would have never expected that." He responded, "The day I started carrying I knew that was over."

In my Commonwealth, 10% of the people 21 or over carry guns. Anywhere you go, you are surrounded by guns. Never a problem.

I would say about half of states have some sort of training requirement. The Great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has not training requirement. And despite the stats you may see about Florida, it is likely we have the most people carrying of any state, 2014 will be over 1 million. With a total population of 13 million (including under 21). Heck, we have 750,000 people in the woods on the first day of Deer Season, they even close businesses and schools in much of the Commonwealth

Sorry, showing some ignorance now. I'll have to start reading up on a few things.

How can a US state call itself a Commonweath State, if you guys are all part of the Union?

If only we could be in a similar position to where citizens (I still maintain training should be required and not just a holster course) can carry.

Yeah, I know that newspapers don't always tell us the truth etc, but, if you have a look at the Daily Telegraph's headline today, it's not a comfortable feeling that "there is increased local traffic about a possible attack."

Great.......

[Title_II]

Pennsylvania is officially not a State, but a Commonwealth in unto itself. It is treated as a state by the federal government and the distinction is not readily noticeable.

[Vati]

There are 50 states in the US (not 54 like Obama said), and from a practical standpoint, ordinary Citizens can carry in 47 of them. New Jersey, Maryland, and Hawaii are out, but Hawaii just lost a court case and is pending. There are also parts of NY and CA that don't like to issue (CA just lost a similar court case and that will be over).

That's how it starts.

Banned in 1, then 2, then 3... The neighbours start to copy and eventually it's everywhere and you're stuck like us.

Good thing you have your NRA over there, hope they manage to keep the rights to carry available for you guys and win back the few you've lost already.

[Title_II]

There are 50 states in the US (not 54 like Obama said), and from a practical standpoint, ordinary Citizens can carry in 47 of them. New Jersey, Maryland, and Hawaii are out, but Hawaii just lost a court case and is pending. There are also parts of NY and CA that don't like to issue (CA just lost a similar court case and that will be over).

That's how it starts.

Banned in 1, then 2, then 3... The neighbours start to copy and eventually it's everywhere and you're stuck like us.

Good thing you have your NRA over there, hope they manage to keep the rights to carry available for you guys and win back the few you've lost already.

I'm not sure I understand. Carry states have increased, and the court cases I am referring to have knocked out two of the last three holdouts.



Hawaii and California will soon go blue because of court rulings.

I also don't think people in the world really understand the NRA. And that certainly includes people in the US. When politicians in the US complain that people are afraid of the NRA and all their big corporate money, they are lying. What they are really afraid of is that the NRA tells on them to their constituents. It's just not healthy for a politician to be honest and say, "It's because they people that vote for me are so darn stupid that I can't do what I want!" LOL NRA does not spend very much on lobbying or campaigns in the grand scheme of things. NRA hasn't initiated many of the state or federal lawsuits that have made the news, but they get credit/blame for it because they show up when they see it is succeeding and provide legal or strategic advice and support, and of course, photo ops LOL. Heck, they get the credit/blame for it when they have zero involvement.

The NRA sent in big advertising money to get anti-gun politicians recalled in Colorado, only problem is - they had zero involvement. It was all grassroots and the Citizens were outspent by Bloomberg 10 to 1.

The NRA does a world of good in legal study, training, and even getting involved in politics or lawsuits a little bit here or there. But they are not the powerhouse, the powerhouse is the People. The most important thing about the NRA is they get people riled up, educated, and send out voting guides for people that don;t spend the required time to research the records of candidates. That is where their real power lies, instigating and educating.

The reason the People are the engine is The Second Amendment to the US Constitution - The right to keep and bear arms. Now, we all know that legislators pay no attention to The Constitution, and judges are fond of weaseling out of it as well. But when you have a motivated population and they have The Second Amendment guarantees to point out, and to make there complaints honorable and their battles righteous, it is a combination that tends to prevail. In this way, and as part of our culture, The Bill of Rights in the US is similar (but second) to the Bible or other religious texts. And when you try to force people in a culture to abandon their beliefs you get trouble.

[cavok]

Title_II,

I am genuinely impressed with your post, and the information it contains.

More power to the people and it is great to see the law makers and government held to account by people power.

Thanks for that very impressive post.

[Vati]

I'm not sure I understand. Carry states have increased, and the court cases I am referring to have knocked out two of the last three holdouts.

As a resident of the US you'd know better than me.

Comments I have read from other US shooters indicated it was going the other way.

Perhaps just in their states. California is one of the ones I was thinking of as it happens and I see according to your map they're still restricted.

[Title_II]

I'm not sure I understand. Carry states have increased, and the court cases I am referring to have knocked out two of the last three holdouts.

As a resident of the US you'd know better than me.

Comments I have read from other US shooters indicated it was going the other way.

Perhaps just in their states. California is one of the ones I was thinking of as it happens and I see according to your map they're still restricted.

Most counties in California are Shall Issue for CC. The court case I spoke of was the one they just got beat on, it requires all counties to allow "justifiable need" or whatever they call it to include simple Self Defense. It is being hashed out but California will go from mostly carry to all carry.

This ruling took down Hawaii with it. Hawaii is one of three states that generally does not allow carry. Worse, Hawaii lost it's own ruling. Hawaii is just waiting for the final ruling and they will have to allow carry.

So, you say comments from other US shooters say it is going the other way. Ask them to name one US state that has further restricted carry in the last 30 years. There is not a single example.

[Korkt]

Good for you guys.

I'll be astonished if it ever gets better for us here.

Only one direction our gun "privileges" are going.

[cavok]

Only one direction our gun "privileges" are going.

Not sure that statement is correct:

I have spent some little time digging into factual firearm number in Australia. The dates of the detailed numbers is 2013. Citations and source is provided.

Victoria; Private ownership 2013: 36,655
NSW; Private ownership 40, 497
Qld; Private ownership 24,444
TOTAL handgun OWNERSHIP Australia 172, 422 a very respectable number:

Shows a great number of honest citizens are in all states. The remainder of firearms quoted at around 2.9 Million long arm and licence holders around 730,000 seems to confirm a previous posting.

The numbers are growing every day.

[anthillinside]

Up front I'm not disagreeing with anything written so far,I recon all my hopes, concerns and fears have have already been raised by others here.

I certainly hope that the increasing NUMBERS results in the removal of unreasonable legislation and a greater acceptance of our chosen sport/hobby/passtime by Govt. & Media.

I wrote in another post that we need to be heard (We need our NUMBERS to get bigger than their NUMBERS).

[cavok] I've seen these exact numbers and they please me also.

My fear is, numbers, they can be twisted and turned to suite any argument.

I've heard an argument on the radio quoting the longarms figures ~3m guns / ~700k = >4 guns per owner "WHY WOULD ANYONE NEED MORE THAN 1 GUN"

Use and refute numbers when you can, but don't rely on them.

We know why we need more than 1 gun, we need to put forward reasonable arguments as to why.

The number of licensed drivers and motor vehicles has increased far more than gun ownership but I haven't seen less restrictions on our use of them or on our roads, quite the reverse I think