Martin Place Terrorist did NOT hold Firearms licence

[Korkt]

Not sure that statement is correct:

I have spent some little time digging into factual firearm number in Australia.

...

The numbers are growing every day.

I was more thinking of things like less requirements to maintain handgun licenses, side arm for hunting as a genuine reason, dare I mention 'self defence'.

This business of having a .30 cal and getting a permit for another .30 cal because you've already got one. The terrible licensing wait times and permit crap some have to put up with... WA, QLD... SA are having trouble at the moment with PTAs I read.

NSW hunting put on hold for months.

Semi autos, banned firearms due to military appearance, calibre restrictions. It goes on...

Don't get me wrong, those numbers are encouraging and I'm pleased to see it. I sure you'll agree though that us law abiding citizens are subjected to a low of red tape, restrictions and other crap due to literally a handful of people doing the wrong thing over the years.

We'll see what the future holds.

[Korkt]

:cry: 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

Likewise alcohol related problems are up but there are no moves to change the sale or consumption of alcohol.

Firearms are responsible for so few deaths compared to so many other things which are all but completely overlooked, yet we get all the "attention".

[cavok]

Not sure that statement is correct:
I have spent some little time digging into factual firearm number in Australia.
The numbers are growing every day.

I was more thinking of things like less requirements to maintain handgun licenses, side arm for hunting as a genuine reason, dare I mention 'self defence'.
This business of having a .30 cal and getting a permit for another .30 cal because you've already got one. The terrible licensing wait times and permit crap some have to put up with... WA, QLD... SA are having trouble at the moment with PTAs I read.
NSW hunting put on hold for months.
Semi autos, banned firearms due to military appearance, calibre restrictions. It goes on...
Don't get me wrong, those numbers are encouraging and I'm pleased to see it. I sure you'll agree though that us law abiding citizens are subjected to a low of red tape, restrictions and other crap due to literally a handful of people doing the wrong thing over the years.
We'll see what the future holds.

OK, 1. Less requirement to maintain handgun. //Sugar, 10 matches/practice per year, very reasonable.
2. Side arm for hunting> // hunting what, that's what rifles are for. Not much harm to a pig using a .22.
3. Self defence, OK, we should have that. But we still need training, hence the 10 use per annum as we have now, or double that, and then some.
4. One 30 cal or one anything should not even come up, get 6 what is the problem with some states?
5. Licencing wait and permit times, state issue, not sure how to address state issues.
6. Semi autos, I hunt with a bolt action, not sure an AR15 is required to hunt.

The red tape we have is not an issue for me, I need background checks, I need to know who owns and carries and that society is safe.
Pistols is comprehensive, possibly to long, rifle is not so long, its the system, same as a drivers licence.

[anthillinside]

Yeah, and if we try to use them as an example, we get shouted down with something like "That's TOTALY different you can't make that comparison" without rational argument.
If you can manage to continue the argument you normally end up finding out that "THEY" are scared of controls on what they think are their rights to drive, drink or what ever.
Why do we get the attenton? I don't really know but I guess it's easy to produce a headline grabbing emotive story about guns.

[cavok]

Yeah, and if we try to use them as an example, we get shouted down with something like "That's TOTALY different you can't make that comparison" without rational argument.
If you can manage to continue the argument you normally end up finding out that "THEY" are scared of controls on what they think are their rights to drive, drink or what ever.
Why do we get the attenton? I don't really know but I guess it's easy to produce a headline grabbing emotive story about guns.

Also easy at the moment to make headlines with aviation stories with Air Asia and others, they are the "topic headliners" they are now number 1.
Another headline grabber are any hostage or terrorist incidents, Martin Place DID NOT rate, but it made it to number 1, Why?

[anthillinside]

Why? yes that's the number 1 question
I have no answers only opinions and you know what they are worth
I think NEWS has become more like marketing.. Try to grab attention, what might grab the attention of the reader/viewer and FEAR is good at grabing attention.
I guess thats exactly what terrorism is about.
Perhaps we should run this off into a new post, it's starting to off-topic from the original post and it's worth a seperate discussion.

[Westy]

Not sure where your getting he Queensland facts but PTA's are flowing like cheap beer on a Friday Arvo here in Queensland. The mob @ WL have been forced to finally clean up their act and were finding getting PTA's a breeze @ present!!!!

[on_one_wheel]

Why? yes that's the number 1 question
I have no answers only opinions and you know what they are worth
I think NEWS has become more like marketing.. Try to grab attention, what might grab the attention of the reader/viewer and FEAR is good at grabing attention.
I guess thats exactly what terrorism is about.
Perhaps we should run this off into a new post, it's starting to off-topic from the original post and it's worth a seperate discussion.

anthillside Nailed it. Fear and minority groups, and if the media can link both with danger to the general public then it makes for sensational news wich equals ratings.

[on_one_wheel]

If this was a Business we would have been broke years ago and the managers sacked immediately!!!:

Guess what, running a country is business and we are broke.... multi billions of dollars in debt, but we are not sacking enough managers, they need to be really bad to get the sack like Kevin Rudd. Unfortunately it is being run by a group of people who act like the board of a mining company... they couldnt care less how its running, as long as they can stay on the gravy train.

[Korkt]

6. Semi autos, I hunt with a bolt action, not sure an AR15 is required to hunt.

Regularly culling large numbers of animals, a semi auto is a valuable tool.

Hunting for a pig in the forest and controlling feral pigs on a property aren't the same thing.

[Lorgar]

1. Less requirement to maintain handgun. //Sugar, 10 matches/practice per year, very reasonable.

Gotta say I'm not with you there.

I'd love the occasional pistol shoot but the requirements keep me away from it. Being forced to do 10 year doesn't appeal to me, I'd just like to go and have a bash - as I do with my rifle - when I feel like it. Not when it's required.

2c.

[cavok]

10 shoots per year, you drive your car daily, it's required just to maintain a very low level skill level. Well get a pistol licence, and shoot club pistols, no firearms required for you to own, no 10 shoots per year and Bingo, you keep your pistol licence in tact for when you want to get real and practice.

[ex_reven]

OK, 1. Less requirement to maintain handgun. //Sugar, 10 matches/practice per year, very reasonable.

2. Side arm for hunting> // hunting what, that's what rifles are for. Not much harm to a pig using a .22.

Handguns are a great way of quickly dispatching livesstock and vermin - I can think of a few times I've had to use a rifle where a pistol would have been far more practical to put down animals. Provided the user is correctly versed in handling a pistol safely, I can't see any issue with it.

As for attendances - I have to agree - while having an attendance requirement can be a huge PITA I'm glad in a way as it discourages the wrong kind of people from buying them for the sake of it or other nefarious reasons. In a perfect world, people licenced for pistols should know their handgun in and out and should be able to use it by second nature in a safe and responsible manner - something that requires practice at a range.

[cavok]

OK, 1. Less requirement to maintain handgun. //Sugar, 10 matches/practice per year, very reasonable.

2. Side arm for hunting> // hunting what, that's what rifles are for. Not much harm to a pig using a .22.

Handguns are a great way of quickly dispatching livesstock and vermin - I can think of a few times I've had to use a rifle where a pistol would have been far more practical to put down animals. Provided the user is correctly versed in handling a pistol safely, I can't see any issue with it.

As for attendances - I have to agree - while having an attendance requirement can be a huge PITA I'm glad in a way as it discourages the wrong kind of people from buying them for the sake of it or other nefarious reasons. In a perfect world, people licenced for pistols should know their handgun in and out and should be able to use it by second nature in a safe and responsible manner - something that requires practice at a range.

Totally agree that the use of a pistol to put down animals that need to be, I cannot in the life of me see vermin unless they are caught in a trap, or lying injured, then I agree.
I have trouble with "Provided the user is correctly versed in handling". As a RO I can assure you categorically that many pistol and rifle shooters after very many years fail. They barely make it through a course of fire without being disqualified, I can think of 2 examples in the past month. I have also seen some from other professions who's pistol handling abilities leave a great deal to be desired.
Actually in part I hold responsible many people who are asked to train, show, explain how and the correct way to shoot pistols, few are even half competent, but good pistol training officers at private ranges are difficult to find. Hence many pistol shooters still use a semi and hold it like it's a revolver, totally different grips required. No wonder many can't shoot. IT'S not about practice, it about good techniques and correct practice. Like driving, a bad driver is a bad driver, possibly because he or she have never been given correct driving tuition.

[ex_reven]

I have trouble with "Provided the user is correctly versed in handling". As a RO I can assure you categorically that many pistol and rifle shooters after very many years fail. They barely make it through a course of fire without being disqualified, I can think of 2 examples in the past month. I have also seen some from other professions who's pistol handling abilities leave a great deal to be desired.
Actually in part I hold responsible many people who are asked to train, show, explain how and the correct way to shoot pistols, few are even half competent, but good pistol training officers at private ranges are difficult to find. Hence many pistol shooters still use a semi and hold it like it's a revolver, totally different grips required. No wonder many can't shoot. IT'S not about practice, it about good techniques and correct practice. Like driving, a bad driver is a bad driver, possibly because he or she have never been given correct driving tuition.

Not going to argue there.
I've also experienced a mix of this:

Newbies who have been inadequately taught - generally with poor muzzle and trigger discipline - this is a failing of our clubs.
It is the responsibility of the club to hammer in safety and training to newbies - this is partially what pistol probationary periods exist for!
If you can't train someone to handle a firearm safely in 6 months then there is something fundamentally wrong with the trainer or their methodology.

Then there's the long time shooters who have become complacent, not as common, but they exist.

I had a shooter a few weeks back - just having come off their probation at his own club and purchased a brand new pistol. Needless to say he was excited to shoot it, but his first actions after unboxing it on the range were to admire it with the barrel pointing down the length of the firing line. I stepped in and gave him a rundown of range safety and how the principles are more or less universal to every range. I was a bit disappointed that a club had not taken more responsibility and provided (and tested) the shooters training throughout the course of his probation. Not to mention his shooting peers.

Safety is everyone's responsibility, and I'm happy that the guys I shoot and hunt with are not afraid to pull their peers up when any breach is made.

[cavok]

I have trouble with "Provided the user is correctly versed in handling". As a RO I can assure you categorically that many pistol and rifle shooters after very many years fail. They barely make it through a course of fire without being disqualified, I can think of 2 examples in the past month. I have also seen some from other professions who's pistol handling abilities leave a great deal to be desired.
Actually in part I hold responsible many people who are asked to train, show, explain how and the correct way to shoot pistols, few are even half competent, but good pistol training officers at private ranges are difficult to find. Hence many pistol shooters still use a semi and hold it like it's a revolver, totally different grips required. No wonder many can't shoot. IT'S not about practice, it about good techniques and correct practice. Like driving, a bad driver is a bad driver, possibly because he or she have never been given correct driving tuition.

Not going to argue there.
I've also experienced a mix of this:

Newbies who have been inadequately taught - generally with poor muzzle and trigger discipline - this is a failing of our clubs.
It is the responsibility of the club to hammer in safety and training to newbies - this is partially what pistol probationary periods exist for!
If you can't train someone to handle a firearm safely in 6 months then there is something fundamentally wrong with the trainer or their methodology.

Then there's the long time shooters who have become complacent, not as common, but they exist.

I had a shooter a few weeks back - just having come off their probation at his own club and purchased a brand new pistol. Needless to say he was excited to shoot it, but his first actions after unboxing it on the range were to admire it with the barrel pointing down the length of the firing line. I stepped in and gave him a rundown of range safety and how the principles are more or less universal to every range. I was a bit disappointed that a club had not taken more responsibility and provided (and tested) the shooters training throughout the course of his probation. Not to mention his shooting peers.

Safety is everyone's responsibility, and I'm happy that the guys I shoot and hunt with are not afraid to pull their peers up when any breach is made.

Excellent piece, well said. The last sentence is great, yes, safety is everyone's responsibility.

[vonfram88]

Sorry, pistols or revolvers are useless for humane destruction of animals unless you have 800J of energy available downrange and or muzzle is against the animals head. I can't think of a sensible handgun that would still be making 800J at 50 yds. Humane kill means instant death, not putting the poor creature down with a hole in its chest waiting to die.

[cavok]

Sorry, pistols or revolvers are useless for humane destruction of animals unless you have 800J of energy available downrange and or muzzle is against the animals head. I can't think of a sensible handgun that would still be making 800J at 50 yds. Humane kill means instant death, not putting the poor creature down with a hole in its chest waiting to die.

Guess you have never fired a Desert Eagle in .50 cal or S&W 500. That's just 2. As for humane destruction of animals 1 metre is great, little danger. Beats a .233 with 56grn projectile. If what you write is required, Humane kills means instant death, WHY do our governments allow Halal slaughtering of cattle and other animals, guess we need to wake the governments and Muslims up to the fact we will no longer allow halal killings.

[ex_reven]

Humane = as painless as is practically possible

Most rifle kills would be chest shots and I can tell you now that they are rarely an instant death.
The bottom line is minimising suffering, a pistol used at the correct distances (or as a follow up shot on an injured animal) is perfectly capable.

[vonfram88]

Sorry, pistols or revolvers are useless for humane destruction of animals unless you have 800J of energy available downrange and or muzzle is against the animals head. I can't think of a sensible handgun that would still be making 800J at 50 yds. Humane kill means instant death, not putting the poor creature down with a hole in its chest waiting to die.

Guess you have never fired a Desert Eagle in .50 cal or S&W 500. That's just 2. As for humane destruction of animals 1 metre is great, little danger. Beats a .233 with 56grn projectile. If what you write is required, Humane kills means instant death, WHY do our governments allow Halal slaughtering of cattle and other animals, guess we need to wake the governments and Muslims up to the fact we will no longer allow halal killings.

I have fired all of the DE in 357, 44 and 50AE. Still wouldn't use one for hunting or pest destruction even if we were allowed. Every now and then someone brings out their 357 DE for a prac pistol match. The damn thing is jam city, utter useless piece of crap. Never have fired the 500 SW that all keyboard warriors fantasize about shooting one handed x ring double taps. But I have seen a bunch of handgunners trying to hunt goats back in the early 1990s. It was pathetic and cruel.

I don't have a "233" but my 223 Remingtons make more muzzle energy than the published figures for the 50AE - I'm being a bit of a google expert now since I have never chrono'd a 50AE.

In WA a primary producer is allowed to carry a revolver during mustering for protection against charging cattle. It's not necessarily going to be an instant kill, but hopefully it will prevent the worker from being harmed or killed by stopping the threat.

How people of Abrahamic faiths slaughter animals for consumption has no relevance. When the main blood vessels in the neck are cleanly severed, the animal loses consciousness. There are plenty of failures in commercial non Halal and non Kosher slaughterhouses that lead to animal suffering. I notice you have singled out Muslims here, is there any reason for this?

[cavok]

From the above, ""I have fired all of the DE in 357, 44 and 50AE. Still wouldn't use one for hunting or pest destruction even if we were allowed. Every now and then someone brings out their 357 DE for a prac pistol match. The damn thing is jam city, utter useless piece of crap. Never have fired the 500 SW that all keyboard warriors fantasize about shooting one handed x ring double taps.""

The D/Eagle is extremely reliable, I'm sorry someone must have a crook model. I have never seen one jam, a few rounds tumble as it its the target, but that was his load error. In 9mm still a fantastic reliable and pistol. Anyone who has ever fired a S&W 500 and dreams of a double tap is in noddy land, one handed I have never seen it shot. Keyboard warriors dream of many things, but never fired an actual shot. My .223 is much as yours, just typing to fast.
As for singling out Muslims in my post, yes I did, there was a topic run on halal killing of cattle, muslims were mentioned, I know of no others that slaughter animals so inhumanely, the government should ban the practice, in all states. Guess it's politically correct to allow them rights that other abattoirs are not allowed. Let them all eat meat as we slaughter it or become vegans, should get some pork on their fork. Support or farmers.

[Westy]

I know of no others that slaughter animals so inhumanely, the government should ban the practice, in all states. Guess it's politically correct to allow them rights that other
Just Curious Cavok have you ever seen a Ahull head knock system??? Hate to be the one to tell you but it isn't at all Barbaric, in fact I think the cattle just might like it more than the standard practise Either way they just end up in boxes or in my Belly

[1290]

ForFS we as mankind have slaughtered our food the same way for what? 10s of thousands of years or more? I'm from a Christian European family and we always used the same method, yes, its not pretty to watch but suddenly the MUSLIMS are barbarians, maybe we are but we just forgot....

wgaf how the meat is converted from live to steak.

[Lorgar]

10 shoots per year, you drive your car daily, it's required just to maintain a very low level skill level.

My level or skill (or lack thereof) is irrelevant. I don't want to have to maintain anything, I would want to go for fun only, when I felt like it.

It would be nice to be able to do that with my own equipment when I felt like it is what I'm saying, just like I can with my rifles.

[Point223]

Dear Cavok

Kosher is identical to Halal just the jewish version... and all Animals are stunned in Australia whether they're Halal, Kosher, or none. THEY MUST BE STUNNED! so your argument on banning Halal is moot.

And there's no humane way to kill an animal... I've seen Borsak himself shooting a pig in the thigh and then running up to it and slitting it's throat with a pocket knife. Big fu#kin deal man the fu#k up you greenie soft hearted oh please don't kill animals inhumanely i'm a girly little boy whose feelings are going to be hurt!

[North East]

Westy - agree
1290 - agree
Lorgar - agree
Point223 - agree

Cavok - DISAGREE

I don't shoot pistols, no interest whatsoever get bored ****** at a range putting holes in paper with a pissy little caliber.

...and I don't give a damn where my meat comes from or how it was slaughtered, as long as it tastes good.

[cavok]

Dear Cavok

Kosher is identical to Halal just the jewish version... and all Animals are stunned in Australia whether they're Halal, Kosher, or none. THEY MUST BE STUNNED! so your argument on banning Halal is moot.

And there's no humane way to kill an animal... I've seen Borsak himself shooting a pig in the thigh and then running up to it and slitting it's throat with a pocket knife. Big fu#kin deal man the fu#k up you greenie soft hearted oh please don't kill animals inhumanely i'm a girly little boy whose feelings are going to be hurt!

Pity you can't get your facts right, guess you are still learning. Guess attacking the messenger is about right?

[cavok]

Dear Cavok

Kosher is identical to Halal just the jewish version... and all Animals are stunned in Australia whether they're Halal, Kosher, or none. THEY MUST BE STUNNED! so your argument on banning Halal is moot.

And there's no humane way to kill an animal... I've seen Borsak himself shooting a pig in the thigh and then running up to it and slitting it's throat with a pocket knife. Big fu#kin deal man the fu#k up you greenie soft hearted oh please don't kill animals inhumanely i'm a girly little boy whose feelings are going to be hurt!

Thought you might like to read this. An apology anytime would be good.

For cattle and sheep, the requirements for religious slaughter without prior stunning are set out in a nationally adopted guideline Ritual Slaughter for Ovine (Sheep) and Bovine (Cattle):

For cattle, stunning is still required but this occurs immediately after the throat is cut. Two separate slaughtermen must be present: one to perform the cut (which must sever both the carotid arteries and jugular veins) and one to perform the stunning.
For sheep, stunning is not required except where the animal is distressed or does not rapidly lose consciousness, in which case they must be immediately stunned.
The requirements for cattle and sheep are different because cattle take longer than sheep to lose consciousness as they have an extra blood supply to the brain at the back of the neck running along the vertebrae.

The RSPCA is concerned there are much greater risks of an animal suffering during slaughter without stunning than for conventional slaughter. Slaughtering an animal while fully conscious requires additional handling and restraint and means that the animal will experience pain associated with the throat cut and subsequent bleeding out. For these reasons, the RSPCA is strongly opposed to all forms of slaughter that do not involve prior stunning of the animal.

[tom604]

put a link up cavok, is that for Australia ?

[ex_reven]

put a link up cavok, is that for Australia ?

Looks like it originated here:
http://kb.rspca.org.au/what-is-halal-sl ... a_116.html