Wednesday, June 12, 2013

Lawful Gun Ownership on the Rise in NSW Australia

NSW Greens MP David Shoebridge says new gun permits have more than doubled in the past decade.

Yahoo News reports

Firearms ownership is on the rise in NSW with the number of new gun permits more than doubling in the past decade, the Greens say.

In 2002, 29,618 permits were issued by the NSW firearms registry, and had jumped to 66,460 in 2012, figures released by NSW Greens justice spokesman David Shoebridge show.

He says the government and opposition are part of the problem due to their political binds to the Shooters Party, which holds the balance of power in the state's upper house.

"The former Labor government created the pro-gun Game Council in a 2002 deal with Shooters MPs and Barry O'Farrell has continued the deals with hunting in National Parks," Mr Shoebridge said in a statement.

"Unless we start tightening up the rules to get a firearm, we risk losing the gun control advances achieved in the wake of the Port Arthur tragedy."

People across NSW wanted politicians to "stand up to the gun lobby and work to control gun numbers" as more legal firearms in the state provides greater opportunity for criminals to steal guns, Mr Shoebridge said.

Oh, I wish I had an Australian Dollar for every time one of the gun-rights fanatics told us guns were banned in Australia.  What is it that makes the pro-gun folks think they can make up stuff like that?

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

29 comments:

  1. Wow, their anti-gun groups are much more blunt and straight forward about their agenda.

    Mike: “Oh, I wish I had an Australian Dollar for every time one of the gun-rights fanatics told us guns were banned in Australia.”

    You have this chronic problem of inserting/removing the word “all” whenever you feel like it. Who said all guns are banned in Australia? They did have massive bans on whole classes of popular weapons, complete with confiscations. Are you suggesting that because more people are getting permits to acquire bolt/break action guns that 1996 never happened?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, what I'm saying is you guys misuse the word "ban." You are the ones who leave out the word "all" so you can fall back on being technically correct.

      Delete
    2. Technically correct is the term someone uses who can't follow the complexities of an argument.

      Delete
    3. You say it's not a ban so long as someone somewhere has some type of gun. You're being absurd. Everyone uses the word "ban" to describe the "Assault Weapons BAAAAANNNN" but you.

      Delete
    4. To pose a question to the pro gun commentators:

      Would you consider an arms-control policy (in a country such as Australia that requires lawful gun owners to hold a government issued license to own firearms and acquire ammunition) that would suspend indefinitely all civilian gun permits and preclude the issuance of any new permits to any non-state entities to constitute a ban?

      If a prohibition on the civilian possession of firearms does not originate in a legislative act, but is rather the result of a bureaucratic, judicial, or executive ruling, that effectively achieves a similar result, you you regard such as a "ban".


      It appears that the aforementioned solution may be more politically feasible (at least in Australia) than a legislative ban on firearms.

      Delete
    5. You say it's not a ban so long as someone somewhere has some type of gun. You're being absurd. Everyone uses the word "ban" to describe the "Assault Weapons BAAAAANNNN" but you.

      Standard operating procedure for Mikeb. Remember when he accused gun rights advocates of dishonesty for claiming that Chicago banned shooting ranges (while requiring range time for a handgun permit), because Chicago's ban "only" applied to Chicago?

      Now that's funny.

      Delete
    6. I remember that well. I guess Australia didn't really ban semi-autos and pump action firearms because they didn't also ban them in the USA.

      Delete
    7. Soviet Jade, anything that prevents private citizens from being armed is effectively a ban. When you try to be devious, it doesn't work, except to confirm your lack of character.

      Delete
    8. Yes, CCP, I mean, E.N., we would consider such an action to be, in effect, a ban, even if it wasn't one in form.

      Tell me, did you expect that we would think you were someone else with a Concealed Carry Permit, or did you forget a C?



      As for Mike, I'll smack the dead horse again: Yes, we know they allow some guns in Australia, but we talk about how they banned semi-autos and restricted access to the other types--it's only in your mind that we say that Australia had a complete ban on all guns.

      And don't try to pull up someone not commenting here or some past commenter not currently debating you. If you want to force us to answer for their misconceptions, then it's only fair for us to make you answer for those on your side who call for our deaths, and those on your side who call for complete bans. At that point, we'll all just be throwing shit with no real effect.

      Delete
    9. Our "Greg Camp" has attained a new level of ignorance..................

      The Communist Party of the Soviet Union was abbreviated as CCCP as opposed to CCP. I would expect one who aggrandizes itself as belonging to the "educated" classes to be aware of the history of your rulers, but alas you are far to young to remember the days when we ruled.

      Tennessean, however has no excuse for ignorance.

      I did not accidentally omit a "C" from the name of the party. Don't you know your masters? Are you ignorant of the largest and oldest living culture on Earth? What is the name of the organization that has replaced the teeming masses of Confucian scholars and eunuchs who crawled the vast streets of the Forbidden City, who now serve the new, Red Dynasty? You should know what the CCP is.

      Delete
    10. Jade, thanks for admitting that you're the source of the many sockpuppets who say the same idiotic things.

      Delete
    11. E.N. I have to point out that the sea peoples were sailing the oceans of the world as traders (and yes, raiders) while the ancestors of modern (and ancient) Chinese culture were still scratching in the mud with sticks. And now, I think I'll leave the weeds.

      Delete
    12. Greg, I am not Jade-goblin or whatever alias casts the shadows in which the vain may cower and fling poo in relative comfort and safety. That which does not belong to me, nor which I bear any claim or manifest in covetous desire, I shall not bestow my mark upon.

      Gelding, you are correct in your assertion as to the impeded expansion of the Han Chinese, who due to our infertile native lands, we had yet to populate the majority of China until the Qin Emperors. However, it appears that you remain ignorant of the many other Chinese peoples who happened upon more fertile lands.

      Delete
  2. What do you say to those groups that want to implement restrictions in order to reduce gun ownership and push the gun rights political power even lower? They make lots of rules and then say it is a “problem” if the people following those rules are on the rise. That’s not you, right? Right?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think its pretty interesting that they have an actual shooters and fishers party. And they actually seem to hold some sway in politics, though I'm not real knowledgeable of Austrailian politics of football.
    It's also pretty interesting that even with their current strict laws in place, they're getting the vapors about too many people passing all of their requirements. This shows that the rules are a form of limiting numbers as opposed to trying to insure that the wrong people cant get guns.
    Something like your contention that Cody Wilson added metal to the design of the Liberator pistol to comply with federal law and you stated he did it to was your term, "get around" the undetectable firearm law?
    These politicians are concerned because there are more lawful citizens willing to jump through the hoops needed to own a firearm.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mikeb, there are bans in Australia. There are also heavy restrictions on permitted firearms. For example, to own legally those handguns shown in the picture, a person has to demonstrate participation in target shooting sports and wait a year for permission. (I'm summarizing the rules--we can go through the weeds if you insist.) And as others have pointed out, politicians are whining that too many people are following the rules.

    This is what we'll never accept here, but it's what you want for America. As the control freak said, unless we tighten up the rules, we risk losing gun control advances. Yup, that's your attitude, and that's exactly what we'll fight every time your side tries it here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They are very forthright that the rules are there to discourage gun ownership, and if gun ownership is on the rise that must mean it is time to make them more onerous. It is not at all about ensuring people are qualified. Mike, either they are honest compared to the gun controllers stateside, or they are extremists in comparison. Which do you think it is? I tend to think it is the former, and that behavior can be explained by how much political power they have compared to gun rights in each country. If it is the latter, some kind of admonishment of the Austrailian practices would be in order, but I am yet to see that from anyone advocating for gun control over here.

      Delete
  5. "Oh, I wish I had an Australian Dollar for every time one of the gun-rights fanatics told us guns were banned in Australia." And I wish you would make up your mind as to whether information from other countries was fair game...and then abide by your own decision.

    ReplyDelete
  6. So when I say the following statement, what does it mean to you?

    innocent civilians have been killed by US drone strikes in Afghanistan.

    Do you find that statement to be manipulative because not EVERY innocent civilian is dead, or is this a normal way to express concern about US foreign policy? Should someone's concern for innocent life be alleviated by thinking, "hey, I'm sure some people are still alive"?

    I just find it odd that you would call us out for being "technically accurate" because you twist simple statements in the same way as my above example.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I repeat, when you guys say, "guns are banned in Australia," you're implying that ALL guns are banned to civilians. In fact, I think some of you actually believed it for a while. When called on it, of course, you resort to the bullshit justification that you meant some guns are banned and the rest are heavily restricted.

    But that's not what you say.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Except that we don't say "guns are banned in Australia." We typically say "some types of guns are banned in Australia" or "Aussie Style Gun control" etc. Those of us debating you here know what we're talking about and aren't trying to pull the tricks you're accusing us of.

      So if you're going to blame us for and make us answer for the ramblings of people elsewhere on the internet, then why do you refuse to tell us why You people want to ban all of our guns, because if I just had a nickle for every time I've been told that a total ban is the cure we need, I'd be quite well off.

      Delete
    2. Mikeb, you have no moral ground to whine from, considering the volume of wild accusations and commentary you make.

      What you've been silent on is whether or not you support the attitude of Australian control freaks.

      Delete
    3. Greg, you know better than anyone what I support. I've been anything but silent about that.

      Delete
    4. Mike, let me help clarify what Greg is asking: We know you like the Australian model, even though it's not your exact model. Do you also like their attitude here? The attitude that they need to modify the Australian model to further discourage gun ownership and try to eliminate it?

      Delete
    5. First of all, I'm not sure if the way you described it is representative of the Australian attitude. But, no, I'm not really into that. I'm into disq1ualifying unfit people from gun ownership, not just anybody to get the numbers down.

      Delete
    6. Mikeb, do you deliberately try to rile us up? You're being so intentionally lunkheaded that at times I have to take a deep breath before responding.

      You presented an article that makes it clear that Australian politicians don't like the idea of increasing numbers of gun owners, regardless of whether they are good owners or not. Now you say that you don't know what said politicians really believe. What is wrong with you?

      But notice this also. The kind of system that you propose creates so many opportunities for this kind of abuse that it really doesn't matter if you want to get the numbers down or you don't care about the numbers. The effect of your proposals would be to make it possible for others to pick an arbitrary number as being too high. That makes you an accomplice, intentionally or not.

      Delete
    7. Greg, I know I'm the lunkheaded one, but you're the one who keeps misrepresenting what I say.

      I DID NOT say I don't know what those "said politicians" really believe. I said I don't know if what they said is representative of the gun control movement there.

      AND, I went on to say "I'm not really into that."

      Delete
    8. Did you read what I said? It doesn't matter what you're into. Whether you're into it or not, what you propose would enable people who are. I don't care if your motives are pure as the driven snow. When you side with villians, you get characterized by their actions.

      Delete
  8. But that's not what you say.

    That's not what who says? As Tennessean stated, if none of us--current, regular comment thread participants--have claimed that private gun ownership is banned in Australia, we cannot legitimately be held accountable for someone who has made such a claim.

    ReplyDelete