alexjones wrote:Are people killed by police counted as a firearm death for the statistics? Or gangland shootings? Or what about accidents? This would add a few every year to the numbers if they are. I know in America they count them as such. Around 800 Americans die every year by accidents related to firearms. Like who cleans a loaded gun? You deserve to lose the back of your skull if you are that stupid in my opinion.
Oldbloke wrote:alexjones wrote:Are people killed by police counted as a firearm death for the statistics? Or gangland shootings? Or what about accidents? This would add a few every year to the numbers if they are. I know in America they count them as such. Around 800 Americans die every year by accidents related to firearms. Like who cleans a loaded gun? You deserve to lose the back of your skull if you are that stupid in my opinion.
I don't think the abs would differentiate.
alexjones wrote:Oldbloke wrote:alexjones wrote:Are people killed by police counted as a firearm death for the statistics? Or gangland shootings? Or what about accidents? This would add a few every year to the numbers if they are. I know in America they count them as such. Around 800 Americans die every year by accidents related to firearms. Like who cleans a loaded gun? You deserve to lose the back of your skull if you are that stupid in my opinion.
I don't think the abs would differentiate.
There you go mate. So when you break the numbers down firearm deaths in Australia from lawful owners are literally as close to 0 as possible. But you, me and everybody on here would know this already unlike the overall populous.
Oldbloke wrote:Sooo, cops just keep cocking up!
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-06/ ... /103927244
alexjones wrote:
The police in NSW gave that bloke a pistol licence who killed his 2 kids and himself. Two gun clubs did not want him to be a member due to concerns about him but the police commissioner gave him an exemption anyway. I hate our gun laws and this whole concept of "public interest" yet the way the laws are written why would the police commissioner give an exemption to a bloke who was kicked out of two gun clubs for concerns about his mental health? Does that not scream reject application in the public interest? or at least investigate further?
.
bigrich wrote:alexjones wrote:
The police in NSW gave that bloke a pistol licence who killed his 2 kids and himself. Two gun clubs did not want him to be a member due to concerns about him but the police commissioner gave him an exemption anyway. I hate our gun laws and this whole concept of "public interest" yet the way the laws are written why would the police commissioner give an exemption to a bloke who was kicked out of two gun clubs for concerns about his mental health? Does that not scream reject application in the public interest? or at least investigate further?
.
I watched the 60 minutes report on this case, and Liz Hayes made no mention of the two clubs warning licensing about this guy. I mean we can’t show gun owners to be responsible concerned citizens can we
alexjones wrote:bigrich wrote:alexjones wrote:
The police in NSW gave that bloke a pistol licence who killed his 2 kids and himself. Two gun clubs did not want him to be a member due to concerns about him but the police commissioner gave him an exemption anyway. I hate our gun laws and this whole concept of "public interest" yet the way the laws are written why would the police commissioner give an exemption to a bloke who was kicked out of two gun clubs for concerns about his mental health? Does that not scream reject application in the public interest? or at least investigate further?
.
I watched the 60 minutes report on this case, and Liz Hayes made no mention of the two clubs warning licensing about this guy. I mean we can’t show gun owners to be responsible concerned citizens can we
That is very interesting mate that they did not mention that. I was mistaken sorry. One of the clubs was a rifle club and the other club was a pistol club. Both clubs thought he would not be a good fit for the club as he was demanding, pushy and aggressive.
He was already denied a licence years prior, had to have special exemptions to shoot at clubs unlicensed, rejected membership by two clubs then got a police commissioners exemption to finally get his pistol licence. Then he bought a glock.
Police reject peoples applications in the "public interest" because of speeding fines yet this bloke was deemed fit and proper? Makes no sense.
Here is the inquest into it all if you have spare time.
https://coroners.nsw.gov.au/documents/f ... l_2021.pdf
Oldbloke wrote:WOW, this is a dangerous development.
"Questions are being asked about the separation of powers in Western Australia following revelations that WA Police are quasi-rejecting Firearm Additions (PTAs) for people who currently have more than the number of firearms that will be permitted under the state’s planned new gun laws, which have not yet proceeded through parliament, let alone been enacted."
https://sportingshooter.com.au/gun-law/ ... not-exist/
bigrich wrote:Oldbloke wrote:WOW, this is a dangerous development.
"Questions are being asked about the separation of powers in Western Australia following revelations that WA Police are quasi-rejecting Firearm Additions (PTAs) for people who currently have more than the number of firearms that will be permitted under the state’s planned new gun laws, which have not yet proceeded through parliament, let alone been enacted."
https://sportingshooter.com.au/gun-law/ ... not-exist/
This is a government that is a law unto itself and not being held to account. It’s actually sounding like a dictatorship. The more that media and the public seem to voice concerns over this behaviour, the more this government and WA police seem to double down on their determination to do what they want. Our state government’s in this country seem to be pushing the boundaries of their authority. The enforcement of COVID laws and restrictions on citizens seems to have awoken a power trip in some of our leaders and authorities. The “yes” vote didn’t get up because it was a bad policy with no details. Even though it was defeated, numerous governments seem to be pushing treaty’s on the quiet, with no consideration for the majority of their citizens. Don’t get me wrong, I think acknowledging First Nations and the horrible history is long overdue, but a government appointing a council of their favourite First Nations city bound intellectuals , smacks of corruption. If aboriginal people from the regions voted for representation for their relevant issues and concerns I could accept that.
It’s just another example of unaccountable actions by our leaders. Who are supposed to be serving the majority of citizens and this country in its best interests. Politicians and police commissioners seem to think their a law unto themselves. Okay, my little rant is done
alexjones wrote:
We need laws that stop people being reliant on the government and allow us to be our own first responders. That is the only way to minimise crime, domestic violence and save peoples lives. If only women (half the voting pool) in this country understood the law could be changed to allow them to carry the ultimate force equaliser to protect them from a scumbag ex partner.
bigrich wrote:alexjones wrote:
We need laws that stop people being reliant on the government and allow us to be our own first responders. That is the only way to minimise crime, domestic violence and save peoples lives. If only women (half the voting pool) in this country understood the law could be changed to allow them to carry the ultimate force equaliser to protect them from a scumbag ex partner.
i gather you're referring to people carrying a pistol or some form of sidearm . in theory , if everyone did what's right , it's a good idea . BUT, as i myself grew up in a area of blue collar/ social security dependents ( think houso's) , there were a lot of "loose" characters i knew as a young fella who should NOT be allowed access to any firearms by any relaxing of the laws . for those responsible people who would pass a vetting process , it would be a legal nightmare to become a first responder using potential lethal force. i've seen a lot of women plat the victim and weaponize the current legal system into harassing and bullying their ex partner . that old saying "a woman scorned..." is very true. to give them a firearm when their going through all sorts of emotional issues is inviting disaster . i think the current laws aren't too bad , with a few things amended . being a licensed pistol owner in this country has become very restrictive . i'd love a modern replica of a 1860's remington 44 , walker colt or SA 45 colt revolver, but it's too much hard work and powders for reloading are rare .
JMHO
alexjones wrote:Bigrich and oldbloke would you blokes be open to the possibility of citizens be allowed to concealed carry firearms? Lets say after all the backgrounds, mental and medical checks and training etc etc in your opinions do you think people should in some capacity be allowed to insure their life against criminals in public spaces? We won't even talk about in the home just when navigating society?
My opinion is I think there should be a way to allow people to do it. Whatever that process would theoretically be I am for it. Yes so called "unstable" people would have access but that is just life. Life comes with risk. I hate the idea of good people being left defenceless just because there are some bad people out there who may do something bad.
We all know police rarely prevent crime. They show up after the fact. So having people strapped is the only way to help minimise crime as it occurs. That is my opinion on the matter.
The good American states have it the right way. People will do bad things but we should not punish everybody just because a small percentage will do something horrible.
alexjones wrote:Bigrich and oldbloke would you blokes be open to the possibility of citizens be allowed to concealed carry firearms? Lets say after all the backgrounds, mental and medical checks and training etc etc in your opinions do you think people should in some capacity be allowed to insure their life against criminals in public spaces? We won't even talk about in the home just when navigating society?
My opinion is I think there should be a way to allow people to do it. Whatever that process would theoretically be I am for it. Yes so called "unstable" people would have access but that is just life. Life comes with risk. I hate the idea of good people being left defenceless just because there are some bad people out there who may do something bad.
We all know police rarely prevent crime. They show up after the fact. So having people strapped is the only way to help minimise crime as it occurs. That is my opinion on the matter.
The good American states have it the right way. People will do bad things but we should not punish everybody just because a small percentage will do something horrible.
Faedy wrote:I'm urging ever WA LFAO to go put an application in for an additional firearm asap. Stuff these commi pricks up.
Papalia is about to fall on his own sword and hopefully Cook and Blanch aren't far behind him
bladeracer wrote:Faedy wrote:I'm urging ever WA LFAO to go put an application in for an additional firearm asap. Stuff these commi pricks up.
Papalia is about to fall on his own sword and hopefully Cook and Blanch aren't far behind him
Seems pointless if they're just filing them in the bin.
Faedy wrote:bladeracer wrote:Faedy wrote:I'm urging ever WA LFAO to go put an application in for an additional firearm asap. Stuff these commi pricks up.
Papalia is about to fall on his own sword and hopefully Cook and Blanch aren't far behind him
Seems pointless if they're just filing them in the bin.
SAT will be busy dealing with thud.
Papalia is sweating now.