Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party to contest SA election

Labor, Liberal, Greens, Democrats? Here's the place to discuss.

Re: Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party to contest SA elect

Postby Sojourner » Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:18 pm

Gozu wrote:You might even be able to get a new gun Psyber if that Liberal Democratic Party nutter gets in!


A Green calling a Libertarian a Nutter? How does that work Gozu? As I understand it they want the Government to have less control over peoples lives, hardly unreasonable as opposed to the nanny state we currently have.
Steamranger, South Australia's best ever Tourist Attraction, Treat Yourself, Let your Money Buy you Happiness!!!
User avatar
Sojourner
Veteran
 
 
Posts: 3745
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:25 pm
Has liked: 7 times
Been liked: 3 times
Grassroots Team: Ovingham

Re: Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party to contest SA elect

Postby Grahaml » Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:29 pm

Psyber wrote: This is not about micro parties, but about winning seats without getting anywhere near a quota on the primary vote, over candidates who got much higher primary vote levels.
This happens now only because of behind the scenes party preference distribution deals!
The aim is to get rid of these non-transparent inter-party deals.

Nick X actually got a quota to get into office the first place and came close to two this time.
The contrast is that one of this new group got something like 0.22% of the primary vote and still gets a seat.

(As you may know from my past posts, I, too, love my cars and was reluctant to part with my rather nice Winchester lever action .22 Magnum.)


Nick Xenophon did not get a full quota in the first place. He got 2.9% of the primary vote in SA in 1997 and got to the 8.7% needed via preferences. There was also the factor of some media attention gained by making Bob Moran his running mate that year.

I was looking at the preferences of some of the micros and one had a donkey preference flow! They started with themselves (obviously) then the greens and from that point onwards, all preferences are in order without exception!
Grahaml
Assistant Coach
 
 
Posts: 4812
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:59 am
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 169 times

Re: Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party to contest SA elect

Postby Gozu » Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:29 pm

I'm not a Green for starters (they're just the party closest to my ideals now that the ALP have become a LP-lite), yeah less control like guns for everyone something only a minute fraction of society would tolerate.

Nanny state? Oh please.
"The factory of the future will have only two employees, a man and a dog. The man will be there to feed the dog. The dog will be there to keep the man from touching the equipment" – Warren Bennis
User avatar
Gozu
Coach
 
 
Posts: 13470
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 3:35 am
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 659 times

Re: Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party to contest SA elect

Postby Sky Pilot » Fri Sep 13, 2013 7:55 am

Gozu wrote:
Sky Pilot wrote:
Gozu wrote:
Psyber wrote:(As you may know from my past posts, I, too, love my cars and was reluctant to part with my rather nice Winchester lever action .22 Magnum.)


You might even be able to get a new gun Psyber if that Liberal Democratic Party nutter gets in!

Firearms laws are solely state affairs.


John Howard re: Port Arthur?

Oh FFS! That was a deal done between Howard and the states and nothing to do with gun laws.
People who bought this book also bought a stool and some rope. Unknown literary critic
User avatar
Sky Pilot
Assistant Coach
 
 
Posts: 4390
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:39 pm
Location: Stone Hut Bakery
Has liked: 6 times
Been liked: 3 times
Grassroots Team: BMW

Re: Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party to contest SA elect

Postby tipper » Fri Sep 13, 2013 10:01 am

Gozu wrote:I'm not a Green for starters (they're just the party closest to my ideals now that the ALP have become a LP-lite), yeah less control like guns for everyone something only a minute fraction of society would tolerate.

Nanny state? Oh please.


as opposed to the gun situation we have now where its only the criminals that have the guns? the current gun laws in this country are a complete joke. i dont think that "american style" gun laws will ever be a possibility here, however i fully support the reform of some completely ridiculous laws we currently have.

Pump action shotguns are currently category C or D, basically restricted to primary producers or professional hunters, however pump action rifles are category A or B, available to anyone who passes a one day course, and they have a much greater range than any shotgun (try to do any harm to anything with a shotgun over several hundred metres...)

some guns are unable to be owned due to what they look like. not because of their operation, but because they look scary. its like saying Ferrari's are banned because they look fast, and speeding is bad...

and lol at John Howard having nothing to do with the gun law changes in 96. yes they are state based, but he coerced the states into agreeing to his increased restrictions. threatening to withold gst revenue until the states agreed might have had something to do with it.

if 96 was nothing to do with gun laws, what was it about?
tipper
League - Top 5
 
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:45 am
Has liked: 359 times
Been liked: 531 times
Grassroots Team: Peake

Re: Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party to contest SA elect

Postby tipper » Fri Sep 13, 2013 10:08 am

Psyber wrote:
tipper wrote: anyone else find it ironic that the X man is proposing this, when he himself is the head of a "micro" party!! another example of his hipocracy......

the only reason this is even on the radar is because the "micro" parties involved hold some views that arent really politically correct. personally i dont have any issue with them representing the country (or their states) in the parliament. they have used the system to their advantage, the majors have been doing it for years.....

maybe some different perspectives could be good for a change. obviously it is yet to be seen, and we could be stuck with a similar situation to the last few years, but just because these people hold some non politically correct views, doesnt mean they are necessarily bad. i actually agree with some of the things they have campaigned for. then again, i expect that i will be described as a redneck for my enjoyment of cars and guns.....
This is not about micro parties, but about winning seats without getting anywhere near a quota on the primary vote, over candidates who got much higher primary vote levels.
This happens now only because of behind the scenes party preference distribution deals!
The aim is to get rid of these non-transparent inter-party deals.

Nick X actually got a quota to get into office the first place and came close to two this time.
The contrast is that one of this new group got something like 0.22% of the primary vote and still gets a seat.

(As you may know from my past posts, I, too, love my cars and was reluctant to part with my rather nice Winchester lever action .22 Magnum.)


the preference system has been around for years (decades??) and no one has complained about it before. this time though, some people with "out there" beliefs worked out how to work the system, and the establishment is upset that their secret is out. the Greens have been getting representatives for years on preferences, and the democrats before them. this time some parties from the other side of the spectrum have done it and they are pissy about it. that is all that this is about.

if it was someone from one of the "established" parties that scraped in like this do you think anyone would bat an eye? sure this is an extreme example of it, but this is the way the system was designed to work. you never know, it could be the best thing ever that this has happened, they might do very well and when they are up for re election they could get a quota in their own right. a breath of fresh air. then again, it also has a chance of going tits up...
tipper
League - Top 5
 
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:45 am
Has liked: 359 times
Been liked: 531 times
Grassroots Team: Peake

Re: Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party to contest SA elect

Postby mickey » Fri Sep 13, 2013 10:47 am

Leaping Lindner wrote:I always vote below the line as I don't trust ANY party with their preference deals but sadly I am in a very small minority.


I always vote below the line, and it pisses off who ever I went to vote with because I take my time lol.

Is there anywhere that you can find out the % of below the line votes?
User avatar
mickey
Coach
 
 
Posts: 5651
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 8:54 pm
Location: Playing Poker
Has liked: 137 times
Been liked: 312 times
Grassroots Team: Seaton Ramblers

Re: Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party to contest SA elect

Postby Ecky » Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:21 am

tipper wrote:the preference system has been around for years (decades??) and no one has complained about it before. this time though, some people with "out there" beliefs worked out how to work the system, and the establishment is upset that their secret is out. the Greens have been getting representatives for years on preferences, and the democrats before them. this time some parties from the other side of the spectrum have done it and they are pissy about it. that is all that this is about.

if it was someone from one of the "established" parties that scraped in like this do you think anyone would bat an eye? sure this is an extreme example of it, but this is the way the system was designed to work. you never know, it could be the best thing ever that this has happened, they might do very well and when they are up for re election they could get a quota in their own right. a breath of fresh air. then again, it also has a chance of going tits up...


That's not really true Tipper - Antony Green has been going on about it for years, as have various other psephologists.
Antony has provided a good summary of the history of the debate here
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-11/green-hand-the-power-of-preferences-back-to-the-people/4951020

It has just taken the unusual outcomes of this election for the major parties, the mainstream media and public to finally comprehend the flaws in the system.
John Olsen, June 2012 wrote:"Reserves teams in the SANFL for the two AFL clubs is not negotiable.
We will not compromise the SANFL competition (with AFL reserves teams)."
User avatar
Ecky
2022 SA Footy Punter of the Year
 
 
Posts: 2736
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 10:26 am
Location: Wherever the stats are
Has liked: 12 times
Been liked: 79 times
Grassroots Team: Adelaide Lutheran

Re: Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party to contest SA elect

Postby Ecky » Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:25 am

mickey wrote:
Leaping Lindner wrote:I always vote below the line as I don't trust ANY party with their preference deals but sadly I am in a very small minority.


I always vote below the line, and it pisses off who ever I went to vote with because I take my time lol.

Is there anywhere that you can find out the % of below the line votes?

Have a look here for the 2010 percentages.
http://results.aec.gov.au/15508/Website/SenateUseOfGvtByState-15508.htm
For most states it is above 95% above the line, but lower for Tas, ACT and NT where there are less candidates and hence not as time consuming to vote below the line.

It is still a significant number below the line which is why most senate races are still a long way from being finalised as below the line preferences are only released in a week or two from now.
John Olsen, June 2012 wrote:"Reserves teams in the SANFL for the two AFL clubs is not negotiable.
We will not compromise the SANFL competition (with AFL reserves teams)."
User avatar
Ecky
2022 SA Footy Punter of the Year
 
 
Posts: 2736
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 10:26 am
Location: Wherever the stats are
Has liked: 12 times
Been liked: 79 times
Grassroots Team: Adelaide Lutheran

Re: Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party to contest SA elect

Postby Sky Pilot » Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:56 am

tipper wrote:
Gozu wrote:I'm not a Green for starters (they're just the party closest to my ideals now that the ALP have become a LP-lite), yeah less control like guns for everyone something only a minute fraction of society would tolerate.

Nanny state? Oh please.


as opposed to the gun situation we have now where its only the criminals that have the guns? the current gun laws in this country are a complete joke. i dont think that "american style" gun laws will ever be a possibility here, however i fully support the reform of some completely ridiculous laws we currently have.

Pump action shotguns are currently category C or D, basically restricted to primary producers or professional hunters, however pump action rifles are category A or B, available to anyone who passes a one day course, and they have a much greater range than any shotgun (try to do any harm to anything with a shotgun over several hundred metres...)

some guns are unable to be owned due to what they look like. not because of their operation, but because they look scary. its like saying Ferrari's are banned because they look fast, and speeding is bad...

and lol at John Howard having nothing to do with the gun law changes in 96. yes they are state based, but he coerced the states into agreeing to his increased restrictions. threatening to withold gst revenue until the states agreed might have had something to do with it.

if 96 was nothing to do with gun laws, what was it about?

It was called pulling rank, governing, showing who's boss, blackmail, whatever. It was a one-off scheme to get guns that have no role in modern society off the streets. Nothing more, nothing less. Anyone who wants to mount an argument that its cool to have an AK47 in your house or under the car seat is just not getting it.
People who bought this book also bought a stool and some rope. Unknown literary critic
User avatar
Sky Pilot
Assistant Coach
 
 
Posts: 4390
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:39 pm
Location: Stone Hut Bakery
Has liked: 6 times
Been liked: 3 times
Grassroots Team: BMW

Re: Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party to contest SA elect

Postby mickey » Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:22 pm

Cheers ecky
User avatar
mickey
Coach
 
 
Posts: 5651
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 8:54 pm
Location: Playing Poker
Has liked: 137 times
Been liked: 312 times
Grassroots Team: Seaton Ramblers

Re: Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party to contest SA elect

Postby tipper » Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:44 pm

Sky Pilot wrote:
tipper wrote:
Gozu wrote:I'm not a Green for starters (they're just the party closest to my ideals now that the ALP have become a LP-lite), yeah less control like guns for everyone something only a minute fraction of society would tolerate.

Nanny state? Oh please.


as opposed to the gun situation we have now where its only the criminals that have the guns? the current gun laws in this country are a complete joke. i dont think that "american style" gun laws will ever be a possibility here, however i fully support the reform of some completely ridiculous laws we currently have.

Pump action shotguns are currently category C or D, basically restricted to primary producers or professional hunters, however pump action rifles are category A or B, available to anyone who passes a one day course, and they have a much greater range than any shotgun (try to do any harm to anything with a shotgun over several hundred metres...)

some guns are unable to be owned due to what they look like. not because of their operation, but because they look scary. its like saying Ferrari's are banned because they look fast, and speeding is bad...

and lol at John Howard having nothing to do with the gun law changes in 96. yes they are state based, but he coerced the states into agreeing to his increased restrictions. threatening to withold gst revenue until the states agreed might have had something to do with it.

if 96 was nothing to do with gun laws, what was it about?

It was called pulling rank, governing, showing who's boss, blackmail, whatever. It was a one-off scheme to get guns that have no role in modern society off the streets. Nothing more, nothing less. Anyone who wants to mount an argument that its cool to have an AK47 in your house or under the car seat is just not getting it.


lol. before 96, you couldnt get full auto firearms anyway. i hate to tell you this, but semi auto firearms are actually still legal in this country, and still have a role in our society. they are used frequently on farms, and during government sanctioned culls. they are just more heavily restricted than they were. the same guns used in the port arthur massacre can still be purchased, and used by appropriately licenced individuals.

all the 96 gun law changes did was remove firearms from people that were doing the right thing with them anyway. the criminals didnt hand in squat, as evidenced by the gun problems in western sydney, and for quite a while now, here in adelaide. Martin Bryant was breaking the law before he went on his spree. he wasnt licenced (which was actually already a requirement in tassie at the time) so was in posession of illegal firearms. having tighter laws wouldnt have stopped him, as he was breaking the ones that were already in place. the 96 gun laws were about a hoplophobe with power enforcing his will on the rest of the population, regardless if it actually achieved anything (other than costing the taxpayer millions of dollars) or whether it made anything safer.
tipper
League - Top 5
 
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:45 am
Has liked: 359 times
Been liked: 531 times
Grassroots Team: Peake

Re: Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party to contest SA elect

Postby Grahaml » Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:00 pm

tipper wrote:
and lol at John Howard having nothing to do with the gun law changes in 96. yes they are state based, but he coerced the states into agreeing to his increased restrictions. threatening to withold gst revenue until the states agreed might have had something to do with it.



The gun laws were changed in 1996 but the GST wasn't introduced until after the 1999 election, so not sure how John Howard would have withheld GST revenue.

If you look through the various countries of the world and the deaths by firearm rates compared to the strength of the laws, there's a very clear relationship. People might like the idea of owning guns more easily, but reality says that making guns more available leads to people being killed. I'm strongly opposed to the idea that some people should die so others can shoot some targets.
Grahaml
Assistant Coach
 
 
Posts: 4812
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:59 am
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 169 times

Re: Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party to contest SA elect

Postby tipper » Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:02 pm

Grahaml wrote:
tipper wrote:
and lol at John Howard having nothing to do with the gun law changes in 96. yes they are state based, but he coerced the states into agreeing to his increased restrictions. threatening to withold gst revenue until the states agreed might have had something to do with it.



The gun laws were changed in 1996 but the GST wasn't introduced until after the 1999 election, so not sure how John Howard would have withheld GST revenue.

If you look through the various countries of the world and the deaths by firearm rates compared to the strength of the laws, there's a very clear relationship. People might like the idea of owning guns more easily, but reality says that making guns more available leads to people being killed. I'm strongly opposed to the idea that some people should die so others can shoot some targets.


ok, i stand corrected on the gst bit, but there were threats of funding being witheld at the time.

unfortunately, by restricting guns, you only leave the criminals with guns. The UK has zero handguns. even their olympic competitors had to leave the country to train. however their stats on handgun crime are terrible. since they banned them, there has been a dramatic increase in the use of handguns in crime. show me where you sourced your claim from, as i am not aware of such a relationship.

and in case you didnt realise, guns in this country are actually used to shoot more than targets. farmers use them every day to protect livestock, hunters regularly use them to harvest their own meat, professional cullers make a living out of killing everything from feral dogs to foxes, roos, goats, cats, even some bird species. personally i have shot more feral animals than stationary targets (all legally before anyone asks). target shooting is definitely a legitimate use of firearms, but there are still other legal uses in this country.

can you tell me how many licenced firearms owners have committed gun crime in the last ten years in australia? i think you will be surprised by the answer. people that have met appropriate standards, and have proven that they are responsible people should be able to own pretty much whatever gun they want.

guns in the hands of criminals on the other hand.... unfortunately as it stands in australia, criminals seem to be able to get their hands on whatever type of firearm they want. they are either manufacturing them in backyard setups, or importing them http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/raids- ... 6298625034

guns being owned by private citizens has no impact in this country on criminal misuse of firearms. i dont see how making some things easier for the appropriately screened people will result in people being killed.
tipper
League - Top 5
 
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:45 am
Has liked: 359 times
Been liked: 531 times
Grassroots Team: Peake

Re: Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party to contest SA elect

Postby Psyber » Fri Sep 13, 2013 6:35 pm

Grahaml wrote:
Psyber wrote: This is not about micro parties, but about winning seats without getting anywhere near a quota on the primary vote, over candidates who got much higher primary vote levels.
This happens now only because of behind the scenes party preference distribution deals!
The aim is to get rid of these non-transparent inter-party deals.

Nick X actually got a quota to get into office the first place and came close to two this time.
The contrast is that one of this new group got something like 0.22% of the primary vote and still gets a seat.

(As you may know from my past posts, I, too, love my cars and was reluctant to part with my rather nice Winchester lever action .22 Magnum.)


Nick Xenophon did not get a full quota in the first place. He got 2.9% of the primary vote in SA in 1997 and got to the 8.7% needed via preferences. There was also the factor of some media attention gained by making Bob Moran his running mate that year.

I was looking at the preferences of some of the micros and one had a donkey preference flow! They started with themselves (obviously) then the greens and from that point onwards, all preferences are in order without exception!

My error - I remembered the 8.7% figure but not that he started at 2.9%. :oops:
Still it as a long way from 0.22%.
EPIGENETICS - Lamarck was right!
User avatar
Psyber
Coach
 
 
Posts: 12213
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:43 pm
Location: Now back in the Adelaide Hills.
Has liked: 103 times
Been liked: 389 times
Grassroots Team: Hahndorf

Re: Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party to contest SA elect

Postby Psyber » Mon Sep 16, 2013 5:11 pm

Here is Nick Xenophon's proposal:
NX Proposal.jpg
NX Proposal.jpg (149.96 KiB) Viewed 380 times
EPIGENETICS - Lamarck was right!
User avatar
Psyber
Coach
 
 
Posts: 12213
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:43 pm
Location: Now back in the Adelaide Hills.
Has liked: 103 times
Been liked: 389 times
Grassroots Team: Hahndorf

Re: Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party to contest SA elect

Postby Grahaml » Tue Sep 17, 2013 1:54 am

tipper wrote:unfortunately, by restricting guns, you only leave the criminals with guns. The UK has zero handguns. even their olympic competitors had to leave the country to train. however their stats on handgun crime are terrible. since they banned them, there has been a dramatic increase in the use of handguns in crime. show me where you sourced your claim from, as i am not aware of such a relationship.

and in case you didnt realise, guns in this country are actually used to shoot more than targets. farmers use them every day to protect livestock, hunters regularly use them to harvest their own meat, professional cullers make a living out of killing everything from feral dogs to foxes, roos, goats, cats, even some bird species. personally i have shot more feral animals than stationary targets (all legally before anyone asks). target shooting is definitely a legitimate use of firearms, but there are still other legal uses in this country.

can you tell me how many licenced firearms owners have committed gun crime in the last ten years in australia? i think you will be surprised by the answer. people that have met appropriate standards, and have proven that they are responsible people should be able to own pretty much whatever gun they want.

guns in the hands of criminals on the other hand.... unfortunately as it stands in australia, criminals seem to be able to get their hands on whatever type of firearm they want. they are either manufacturing them in backyard setups, or importing them http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/raids- ... 6298625034

guns being owned by private citizens has no impact in this country on criminal misuse of firearms. i dont see how making some things easier for the appropriately screened people will result in people being killed.


Ouch, wrong again. UK has one of the LOWEST rates of gun related deaths in the world. To get lower you have to go to Japan's laws. Check those out and their annual gun deaths numbers. As for my sources, well, an internet search comes up with a large variety of sources that provide consistent evidence.

That was a nice story about legal use of firearms, but we're talking about activities that are currently illegal.

Guns owned by private people DO have impacts on gun crime. The evidence is incredibly clear. The reasons behind it are varied but basically the crims don't need military weapons to carry out their crimes when citizens are unarmed. By arming the civilian population all you do is force the crims to arm themselves more thoroughly. Imagine a bloke holding up a servo in the US with a screwdriver or other non projectile weapon as is rather common here. They would EXPECT to get a gun pulled on them. So they take a bigger gun. Stats and logic say introducing guns at all increases the risk of injury or death. Make that a more lethal type of gun and you only increase the danger.

I like how the parts of your response that make sense weaken your own argument.
Grahaml
Assistant Coach
 
 
Posts: 4812
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:59 am
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 169 times

Re: Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party to contest SA elect

Postby tipper » Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:44 am

Grahaml wrote:
tipper wrote:unfortunately, by restricting guns, you only leave the criminals with guns. The UK has zero handguns. even their olympic competitors had to leave the country to train. however their stats on handgun crime are terrible. since they banned them, there has been a dramatic increase in the use of handguns in crime. show me where you sourced your claim from, as i am not aware of such a relationship.

and in case you didnt realise, guns in this country are actually used to shoot more than targets. farmers use them every day to protect livestock, hunters regularly use them to harvest their own meat, professional cullers make a living out of killing everything from feral dogs to foxes, roos, goats, cats, even some bird species. personally i have shot more feral animals than stationary targets (all legally before anyone asks). target shooting is definitely a legitimate use of firearms, but there are still other legal uses in this country.

can you tell me how many licenced firearms owners have committed gun crime in the last ten years in australia? i think you will be surprised by the answer. people that have met appropriate standards, and have proven that they are responsible people should be able to own pretty much whatever gun they want.

guns in the hands of criminals on the other hand.... unfortunately as it stands in australia, criminals seem to be able to get their hands on whatever type of firearm they want. they are either manufacturing them in backyard setups, or importing them http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/raids- ... 6298625034

guns being owned by private citizens has no impact in this country on criminal misuse of firearms. i dont see how making some things easier for the appropriately screened people will result in people being killed.


Ouch, wrong again. UK has one of the LOWEST rates of gun related deaths in the world. To get lower you have to go to Japan's laws. Check those out and their annual gun deaths numbers. As for my sources, well, an internet search comes up with a large variety of sources that provide consistent evidence.

That was a nice story about legal use of firearms, but we're talking about activities that are currently illegal.

Guns owned by private people DO have impacts on gun crime. The evidence is incredibly clear. The reasons behind it are varied but basically the crims don't need military weapons to carry out their crimes when citizens are unarmed. By arming the civilian population all you do is force the crims to arm themselves more thoroughly. Imagine a bloke holding up a servo in the US with a screwdriver or other non projectile weapon as is rather common here. They would EXPECT to get a gun pulled on them. So they take a bigger gun. Stats and logic say introducing guns at all increases the risk of injury or death. Make that a more lethal type of gun and you only increase the danger.

I like how the parts of your response that make sense weaken your own argument.


i said gun crime in the UK, not deaths. you are misreading my post. you are also missing the point that criminals in australia currently do have firearms (whatever a military firearm is you havent defined) the story i linked showed the importation of around 200 semi automatic handguns, and did you notice that the article didnt say whether the guns in question have been recovered or not? they havent, they recovered some, not all.

currently your whole argument of arming the population means the criminals will arm themselves more is crap here in australia. people that are licenced for firearms, cannot currently use them in self defence (aside from maybe security guards while on duty, but that is a commercial licence, not private). it is not one of the approved "purpose of use" that has to be endorsed on a licence. there would need to be major changes before a crim would have to worry about the clerk at the servo shooting them.

you are linking owning guns, to being able to use them for self defence. they are two separate arguments. currently most states prohibit the ownership of any item specifically for the purpose of self defence. that includes something like a cricket bat. its different if you have it for playing cricket, and it was handy, however i would be in strife if i used one in self defence, i dont play cricket and never have, prosecutors could probably successfully argue that i owned it for self defence (and they would be right) and despite using it on a home invader, i would have charges to answer. this would need to change long before criminals would have to worry about being shot by their intended victim.

personally i am not advocating that myself anyway. but somehow you have assumed i am. i said i agreed with some of their policies, not all. i do like though that you approve of criminals being able to do whatever they want to their victims, as long as they dont kill them, how generous of you. if the law did change however, i would certainly look into owning something for the protection of my family. im no John Wayne, and even if i lived in the states i wouldnt want a gun on me all the time, however having one in the house would be seriously looked at. but alas, its not an option, and i seriously doubt it will lever be an option in our country.

you have still failed to show me how increasing the allowance of licenced people to own guns in this country would increase the criminal misuse of firearms? i dont see how making it easier for farmers to own semi automatics, or for target shooters to do the same (there are actually international events specifically for semiautomatic firearms) or even hunters will mean the bloke going in to hold up the local maccas will bring an M60. maybe check out New Zealands gun laws. much less restrictive than ours, and yet they have had a longer period of time without a "gun massacre". they are far from the US style open slather, yet anyone that wants one, and can meet their standard can purchase an AR15 if they so wish. no reason it couldnt be the same here.
tipper
League - Top 5
 
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:45 am
Has liked: 359 times
Been liked: 531 times
Grassroots Team: Peake

Re: Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party to contest SA elect

Postby Psyber » Wed Sep 18, 2013 10:37 am

I'd agree that some of the tendency to gun crime in the US may be more to do with the culture and the society than the gun laws.

As much as I disliked having to sell my Winchester when I sold the farm and could no longer justify a licence under SA law, I can think of a lot of people I've met in Oz whom I wouldn't like to have easy access to guns. There are a significant minority of undiagnosed paranoid individuals, and otherwise dysfunctional individuals like Martin Bryant, who are a risk of impulsive actions if someone upsets them. Assessing psychological fitness is for a gun licence is problematical and has never worked. GPs are not skilled enough to pick the less obvious cases, too busy for the job, and don't want the responsibility, and there are not enough shrinks to take it on, even if they wanted to.

So I think the present situation in Oz is fair enough as you can get a licence, and an adequate gun, if you have a legitimate case for needing one.

In the meantime there is no restriction on my owning a hunting bow, a collection of swords, and a nice battleaxe, so long as I don't take the out on the streets. ;)
(I don't even have to lock them up.)
EPIGENETICS - Lamarck was right!
User avatar
Psyber
Coach
 
 
Posts: 12213
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:43 pm
Location: Now back in the Adelaide Hills.
Has liked: 103 times
Been liked: 389 times
Grassroots Team: Hahndorf

Re: Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party to contest SA elect

Postby Sojourner » Fri Sep 27, 2013 11:25 pm

Its worth pointing out that the police have also confiscated weapons from criminals in Australia that were never at any stage sold here legally...
Steamranger, South Australia's best ever Tourist Attraction, Treat Yourself, Let your Money Buy you Happiness!!!
User avatar
Sojourner
Veteran
 
 
Posts: 3745
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:25 pm
Has liked: 7 times
Been liked: 3 times
Grassroots Team: Ovingham

Previous

Board index   General Talk  Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

Around the place

Competitions   SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums   Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |