How serious are they about gun crime??!

[Stubbles McBeard]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-24/a ... ry/7273340

Ice head aquitted after shooting other ice head in the... well... head. I'm sure the gun wasn't legally obtained either.
But if a lafo has a loose .22lr round in the footwell of their ute, god help them.

[<<Genesis93>>]

Go easy on the guy, he probably had a tough childhood, mummy didnt love him, daddy didnt love him, alcoholic / druggie parents, no job opportunities, little education..... all those are worth a big awwwwwwwwww diddums.

He'll get off with a few months in the house.

[AnotherMisfire]

I haven't read the article - but I saw the 730 article.

Allegedly, the shooter was playing with a sawnoff and "didn't know it was loaded" according to the hearsay of his friend.

....

No comment required

[adam]

I think you're mistaken. The authorities are not serious about gun crime. (In fact, they're not serious about crime at all - period)...

What they are serious about is gun control.

You see... criminals don't play by the rules. This makes them hard to control, and cost too much money and effort to worry about or try to change for real.

It doesn't matter that gun control is ineffective. It's popular amongst certain people in our society, plus the media so it's a dead easy target and cheap to go after. People care more about feelings and perceived intention than about truth and real results.

It's far easier to target people who abide by the laws. Getting them for technicalities, minor mistakes, or quietly try to change the laws so that what was legal isn't anymore and trip them up. It's far more difficult to stop crime, because crime doesn't start with objects - it's embedded within.

If you don't believe me have a good chat with an experienced police officer some time. Find out how little support they get from the government for fighting real crime - but tonnes for support for chasing your every day mum and dad. (Not just firearm technicalities, but things such as minor speed camera fines as well)...

[Harper]

But if a lafo has a loose .22lr round in the footwell of their ute, god help them.

That is seriously dangerous.

You might get it in your shoe and walking would be uncomfortable

[Rocker]

But the number of uncomfortable shoe related deaths had dropped dramatically since Johnie's changes to the law

[safeshot]

On the recent "Insight" program on SBS on 'guns' the member for the S & F party (NSW) stated that they alone have pushed for mandatory sentences for the criminal use of a firearm and the Greens and the ALP stopped it going through because neither like the idea of mandatory sentences.
The answer is obvious at the coming elections. The S & F party are putting up some excellent candidates for the coming fed election.

[happyhunter]

Mandatory sentencing is the last thing we need. It means that if you are forced to use a firearm for self defenses the judge will be forced to sentence you to a jail term even if the circumstances prove you had absolutely no choice except shoot to kill.

[Baronvonrort]

On the recent "Insight" program on SBS on 'guns' the member for the S & F party (NSW) stated that they alone have pushed for mandatory sentences for the criminal use of a firearm and the Greens and the ALP stopped it going through because neither like the idea of mandatory sentences.
The S & F party are putting up some excellent candidates for the coming fed election.

The Greens, Labor and Liberal all opposed the bill,gun laws are a state issue

I read the bill didn't have a problem with it, the main change I saw was firearms offences were to be served consecutively which results in longer jail time.

Here is a link to it-
www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment ... -HOUSE.pdf

[adam]

On the recent "Insight" program on SBS on 'guns' the member for the S & F party (NSW) stated that they alone have pushed for mandatory sentences for the criminal use of a firearm and the Greens and the ALP stopped it going through because neither like the idea of mandatory sentences.
The answer is obvious at the coming elections. The S & F party are putting up some excellent candidates for the coming fed election.

Great to hear. It's good that the S&F party is getting out there and showing that they're serious about crime and are looking at providing alternative solutions to the Greens "take all the guns away" mentality.

The concern would be what is considered a criminal offense of a firearm, but I'm sure that things could be ironed out. We need tougher penalties for criminals and serious crimes - not for minor accidental infractions by ma or pop kettle...

[GLS_1956]

I think you're mistaken. The authorities are not serious about gun crime. (In fact, they're not serious about crime at all - period)...

What they are serious about is gun control.

You see... criminals don't play by the rules. This makes them hard to control, and cost too much money and effort to worry about or try to change for real.

It doesn't matter that gun control is ineffective. It's popular amongst certain people in our society, plus the media so it's a dead easy target and cheap to go after. People care more about feelings and perceived intention than about truth and real results.

It's far easier to target people who abide by the laws. Getting them for technicalities, minor mistakes, or quietly try to change the laws so that what was legal isn't anymore and trip them up. It's far more difficult to stop crime, because crime doesn't start with objects - it's embedded within.

If you don't believe me have a good chat with an experienced police officer some time. Find out how little support they get from the government for fighting real crime - but tonnes for support for chasing your every day mum and dad. (Not just firearm technicalities, but things such as minor speed camera fines as well)...

Boy oh boy. You sure hit that thumb right on the nail. Politicians aren't after criminals, "Professional Courtesy" you know.

Criminals by definition do not obey the law, which is why they're criminals and are a threat to society. While the law abiding do obey the law and find themselves being the target of politicians who want to pass laws, make speeches' and get elected.

[<<Genesis93>>]

Professional courtesy

Pretty well sums it up....

[adam]

Criminals by definition do not obey the law, which is why they're criminals and are a threat to society. While the law abiding do obey the law and find themselves being the target of politicians who want to pass laws, make speeches' and get elected.

Precisely!

Which is why changing what's "allowed" and what's not "allowed" isn't going to make any significant impact to crime (firearms related or otherwise). The simple fact that most criminals re-offend when they get out of prison shows that the current penalties are insufficient.

I am still repulsed and sickened by our government which tends to show more concern for pedophiles and ensure that their crimes remain hidden from their neighbours than they are about our children. This itself to me is a clear indication of where our government's priorities and focus are when it comes to crime.

On one hand they look like they're all about care - but when it really matters (such in this example) - you see their true colors. Gun control is no different...

Our government is sick (on all 3 sides) - and we need a good clean out with some fresh perspectives...

[happyhunter]

Criminals by definition do not obey the law, which is why they're criminals and are a threat to society. While the law abiding do obey the law and find themselves being the target of politicians who want to pass laws, make speeches' and get elected.

I am still repulsed and sickened by our government which tends to show more concern for pedophiles and ensure that their crimes remain hidden from their neighbours than they are about our children. This itself to me is a clear indication of where our government's priorities and focus are when it comes to crime.

Stop spreading FUD. The government lists those people on a register and they are monitored for life by the police. Our prisons are full, more are being built and sentences are getting longer. Everything you spew is exaggerated rubbish designed to invoke an emotional responses.

[adam]

Stop spreading FUD. The government lists those people on a register and they are monitored for life by the police. Our prisons are full, more are being built and sentences are getting longer. Everything you spew is exaggerated rubbish designed to invoke an emotional responses.

That's your opinion - and you're entitled to it.

What you're saying is partly correct - the government has this information available to them. But once again - they want us to be completely dependent (and trusting) in them. They still won't allow it to be made publicly available. Why? To me this says that rehabilitation of criminals is more important than protection of the innocent. They don't trust the people that they have been elected to represent.

I could have a pedophile living next door to my family without me knowing. Interesting you have a problem with me having a problem with this. I'm with Darren Hinch on this one. I'd like to be aware if this was the case...

I find it parallels the same attitude expecting granny to be completely reliant on the police if someone breaks in... hoping that the police will arrive or the government will be effective enough.

To me, it's just another example of how the government wants the control and us to be dependent and trusting in them.

I've watched those police shows on TV. I saw a hunter who made a few silly decisions on the same episode get into a hell of a lot more trouble than a drug dealer. The government serious about crime... yeah - about as much as speed camera's are all about safety. The bottom $ line is a higher priority...

[<<Genesis93>>]

So gun owners are JUST like paedos.....

Listed on a database, in every details, and monitored for the life of the firearms licence (wonder if your details are removed after the licence ends/revoked?) and always under scrutiny...

Difference is shooters get the added benefit (!!!!) of being available via crimtrack to INTERPOL..... YAY for global security and an Indonesian cop in Jakarta having access to your details





Firearm penalties not strict enough?????
WHAT A LOAD OF CCCCRRRRAAAAAPPPPPPP.

Many offences for not abiding by conditions with registered arms by licensees, have prison terms up to 4 years.

Many of the POSSESSION offences have fines that would bankrupt small African Nations and prison terms up to 10 years..

Possessing an UNREGISTERED cat E (non General category) Handgun, comes with a penalty of up to $315,000 or a prison term up to SEVENTEEN YEARS. <NOT FOR USING, BUT POSSESSING

No, sorry, there are more than enough penalties, the problem is the police who complain about not having the 'tools' to fight the crime they need to leave us alone, and do 'random storage inspections' on the crims....

post script; of recent the discussion of the burden of proof being on the defendant, ie, prove the gun isnt your if found in your car or on your property.... so, if I've got it right, potentially in VIC, if some fleeing crim dumps a machine pistol in your front yard.... YOU need to prove it isnt yours (refer 17 yr prison)

[adam]

You raise some good counter arguments there Genesis... some good thoughts for thinking over.

I suppose the question I have is if firearm penalties are strict enough (which they may be) - why do we see criminals get off so light, or that woman with a boot full of guns get off with 'not enough evidence'...

Where does the problem lie, and what needs addressing? (Is it the courts?)

But more importantly... I had no idea that my details were available internationally. WTF?!?

Can you elaborate? What exactly do they have?

[<<Genesis93>>]

Well, if the penalty is clearly prescribed...... its the judiciary if it is NOT translated into a sufficient punishment. Whether it be the lack of will or ability....

The ludicrous example of the female with a box full of prohibited unregistered guns next to her in the car.... thats why they reversed the burden of proof so NOW .... SHE would have to prove they WERE NOT hers..... as per my analogy above. Its a band aid show them we're getting tough move by the gov.

Welcome to the information age.... back to the future and the year is 1984 (Funny the movie was actually made in 84 as well!) Inter-pol has access, subject to request, to the info held/managed by CRIMTRAC....if it wasnt enough for a perth owners details to be accessible in Sydney, or Bourke or Cairns....we're meant to believe it has to do with "making us safe" ..... no, sorry.

[Wes]

The ludicrous example of the female with a box full of prohibited unregistered guns next to her in the car.... thats why they reversed the burden of proof so NOW .... SHE would have to prove they WERE NOT hers..... as per my analogy above. Its a band aid show them we're getting tough move by the gov.

That was the recent one 6 months ago or something and she had 12 or 13 guns?

Didn't she basically say they were her boyfriends? She new full well they were there though.

And I think throughout, and definitely afterwards, posted a bunch of stuff on social media saying 'Ha ha, get f%#ked cop" and the like.

Nothing....

*Facepalm goes here*

[doc]

I read an interesting article in the SSAA recently about how serious they are about gun crime. (or the lack thereof). Was quite a concerning article to read at the end of the day and pretty summed up much of what has been written in this thread (plus some other information).

[Gwion]

The ludicrous example of the female with a box full of prohibited unregistered guns next to her in the car.... thats why they reversed the burden of proof so NOW .... SHE would have to prove they WERE NOT hers..... as per my analogy above. Its a band aid show them we're getting tough move by the gov.

That was the recent one 6 months ago or something and she had 12 or 13 guns?

Didn't she basically say they were her boyfriends? She new full well they were there though.

And I think throughout, and definitely afterwards, posted a bunch of stuff on social media saying 'Ha ha, get f%#ked cop" and the like.

Nothing....

*Facepalm goes here*

I've probably said this before but i just don't get how that worked. According to the firearms act, it is illegal to be in possession of an unregistered firearm or any firearm if you are not licenced. Possession is defined as having free access to the firearm. It doesn't matter if she "owned" the firearms, she was in POSSESSION of them and was BREAKING THE LAW!!!


I just don't get it... if i let a mate shoot my 22lr at some cans in the paddock and he doesn't have a licence i would get the book hurled at me if the police found out. On the other hand, illegal firearms, possession and failure to abide by transport and storage laws by an un-licenced person has no come back.....

[sandgroperbill]

This incident gets my blood boiling every time I think about it.

And then there's that guy in SA that tried to sell a firearm (can't remember if it was semi or auto) to an undercover cop.

It's ok, though, it wasn't working properly, so nevermind the intent or his criminal history. Just fine him a few hundred dollars and let him be on his way...

[doc]

I've probably said this before but i just don't get how that worked.

I agree. I keep thinking of the possibilities myself and can only come up with one plausible option - and that's corruption in the court systems. Maybe this person potentially had connections or something similar. I hope I'm wrong (and I probably am) - but I can't come up with another scenario where the outcome makes any sense.