animalpest wrote:I think it's probably a good thing. If it stops a suicide or shooting then that's positive.
The devil will be in the details, such as can your own GP do it?
bladeracer wrote:animalpest wrote:I think it's probably a good thing. If it stops a suicide or shooting then that's positive.
The devil will be in the details, such as can your own GP do it?
If they want to reduce firearm suicides I hop it's already mandatory for Police officers.
Oldbloke wrote:bladeracer wrote:animalpest wrote:I think it's probably a good thing. If it stops a suicide or shooting then that's positive.
The devil will be in the details, such as can your own GP do it?
If they want to reduce firearm suicides I hop it's already mandatory for Police officers.
And ex service men & women. Both have high suicide rates. It's just all about:
Is it needed?
What will be achieved?
Is it fair a equitable?
Will it be it onerous?
Will it be used against us?
colin.rac wrote:Interesting. I just recently last month got my firearms license, where late last year I was in a psychiatric ward for a suicide attempt. I submitted multiple doctor’s notes, ranging from my GP to mental health professionals saying I’m alright now and they granted me my license. I wonder how this new reform is going to affect owner’s like me who have a past history of issues like that. I hope they do not take my firearms away as well as my license.
womble wrote:Looking further into this, it is just reactionary political point scoring.
There were 20 firearm deaths in WA Last year, being suicides, homicides, accidental combined.
There were 389 suicides overall in the state.
There were 83 homicides in the state overall.
The road toll was 174 and other accidental deaths I can’t find record of.
So whilst still tragic, firearms are responsible for a rather small percentage overall.
Compared to other states Western Australia seems to have very low figures. So I’m calling it antis being vindictive.
After all that was the bold quote first and foremost in the article.. “this is not about being vindictive”
Well yes it is. That’s exactly what this is.
If they really wanted to make a difference from a genuine humanitarian perspective, they should be focused on the high numbers. Drug test truck drivers, better training and induction for heavy machinery, whatever, I’m speculating. But fact is lafos rate rather insignificantly
womble wrote:Looking further into this, it is just reactionary political point scoring.
There were 20 firearm deaths in WA Last year, being suicides, homicides, accidental combined.
There were 389 suicides overall in the state.
There were 83 homicides in the state overall.
The road toll was 174 and other accidental deaths I can’t find record of.
So whilst still tragic, firearms are responsible for a rather small percentage overall.
Compared to other states Western Australia seems to have very low figures. So I’m calling it antis being vindictive.
After all that was the bold quote first and foremost in the article.. “this is not about being vindictive”
Well yes it is. That’s exactly what this is.
If they really wanted to make a difference from a genuine humanitarian perspective, they should be focused on the high numbers. Drug test truck drivers, better training and induction for heavy machinery, whatever, I’m speculating. But fact is lafos rate rather insignificantly
womble wrote:A good legal challenge will eat her alive.
She’s got no ground to stand on. She’s appropriated a notoriously violent gangland culture from a foreign country to draw statistics.
And then transposed that into rural Western Australia. It has no relevance outside her own fantasy.
We don’t have crips and bloods roaming the countryside.
She’s an idiot.
womble wrote:A good legal challenge will eat her alive.
She’s got no ground to stand on. She’s appropriated a notoriously violent gangland culture from a foreign country to draw statistics.
And then transposed that into rural Western Australia. It has no relevance outside her own fantasy.
We don’t have crips and bloods roaming the countryside.
She’s an idiot.
womble wrote:That’s a tricky one.
The biggest threat to private gun ownership here today is the rise in radical extremism. It’s what’s driving the constant push for tougher laws. Particularly in Nsw. And of course we recently had some people with radical views turn their thoughts into actions and kill some young police officers in QLD.
The reality is extremists are causing lafos more harm than the antis had ever hoped for in their wildest dreams.
Not hard to find far right views expressed on Aussie gun forums, social media. And a fair percentage of that will be antis in disguise because they live for this stuff. It’s a dream come true for them.
Federal agencies already have full access to all your social media accounts here. They even have full authority to take over your online identity.
New York is a world renowned success story, as you’d know, because you live in the US right.
Through the late 70’s early 80’s it was one of the most dangerous cities in the world. Statistically on parallel with Beirut or Johannesburg. It was a dystopian city of fear where people were too frightened to leave their homes.
Today it’s the safest city in the US.
And yet you can still have access to anything you want so long as your interest is legitimate. You can own an ar-15 for hunting. But you can’t take it out on the streets. If you’re a threat to the peace, which was hard won. New York will f*** you up.
Again no relevance to WA. Already the safest state to live in the country. Gun violence virtually non existent
womble wrote:Wed have virtually no mosques or synagogues left either
bladeracer wrote:womble wrote:Wed have virtually no mosques or synagogues left either
Why not?
womble wrote:bladeracer wrote:womble wrote:Wed have virtually no mosques or synagogues left either
Why not?
Because in your hypothetical “ if all the right wing extremists here in Australia went out and committed acts of terror with firearms”
Because those are the most likely ethnic targets for them in Aus
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_terrorism
safeshot wrote:Lets also see mandatory mental health checks on anyone seeking political office.
Take note of the senator who initially refused the oath of office and has now dumped the party that put her in place. very unstable me thinks.
womble wrote:…but they’re all on drugs. Who would run the country.
This bloke was shi*tfaced 24/7.
And he did a great job. Maybe it’s not such a bad thing.