Hundreds of guns seized in NSW raid

[flappist]

Originally Posted by ken2903

Do you honestly believe the benefits of letting people carry guns with them when they go shopping outweigh the risk of being killed by a bad guy? If you do then i don't think you should be allowed to carry a concealed rubber band.

I think you've seen too many movies.

And that is the problem. Too many cannot tell the difference between real life, movies and video games.

There are thousands of people in Australia who carry concealed handguns. I did for over 10 years as did many people I know.
We all had reasons as were licences accordingly.
Strangely enough we don't seem to have killed a huge number of people.

The problem with the gun debate is that the majority of both pro and anti gunners really have about as much idea about the actual situation as the bogans and mutants in macca's car park have about motor racing and performance vehicles.

I read constantly about you can't do this or that and whatever is too dangerous or safe. The facts seem to have very little to do any of these stories.

It is interesting that the media make a huge story about an 84 year old guy who sold a small amount of gear to an undercover cop yet seem to forget the constant ethnic gun violence that happens on a daily basis in western Sydney. Oh that would be racist wouldn't it?
These guns weren't stolen or used in a crime, they were just things that were once legal and then someone decided to ban them and part of our society do not agree with the laws.

How many here have radar detectors, nitrous kits, pod filters or other things that are banned? How many exceed the speed limit? Oh that is of course different isn't it?

This dealer had 300 guns, that makes him absolutely tiny as most have thousands of guns, most rubbish in "safe storage" waiting for the hopeless beaurocrats in thw weapons registrys to process paperwork.

He did not have 300 illegal guns.

He had 200,000 rounds of ammo. In that a case of 22s is 5000 rds, a case of shot shells is 500 rounds and the average small bore or DTL shooter (both olympic events) would buy 5-20,000 22s at a time or 5000 shotshells, 200,000 would be maybe a months supply for a couple of clubs.
I would have at least 10,000 rounds of ammo in my shed at the moment and I don't shoot all that often anymore.

50kg of powder? If he only carried one brand (of the 10 or so that are available) and he had only one box of each speed powder he would have over 100kg.

The grenade is a bit confusing. There are no pics or actual description of it which makes me suspect that it is not actually a fragmentation, HE or WP rather training dummy or more likely a flash-bang.

I used to sell BirdFright which was shot shells that went bang at about 50m and was used to frighen birds of runways and out of fruit trees. They were reclassified as grenades in 1996 and restricted. So were lots of other things like flare launchers etc.

The pro/anti gun arguement will be resolved the week after Harold Scruby buys a GT, Fred Nile officiates at a gay marriage and A Current Affair tells the truth.

Don't hold your breath........

[Kryton]

Originally Posted by blownvn

I posted that earlier, he sold several guns to undercover police. Here's the news report.

my mistake, i missed your post.
well, good to know why he was arrested anyway.

[blownvn]

Originally Posted by ken2903

Would you suggest people be allowed to use their guns to defend their property too?

We allow that security guards can carry guns to protect cash? Why not other valuables. Obviously as a CIT guy, you know all about this. Trouble is most security companies don't want their guys to draw their guns for any reason, and subsequently the bad guys end up with the cash and more guns. That doesn't make much sense to me.

Homicides in Australia were going down way before the guns laws were tightened, this has been proven in various studies but around half the reduction in gun death was from people choosing other methods to commit suicide. Suicide death hasn't really gone down much, only suicide due to guns has, because guns are harder to get. I have no sympathy for those who commit suicide - they have no thought for those they leave behind.

Your basically saying there will be blood in the streets if CCW ever happens in Australia. Funny enough they said the same in the US before 38 states enacted CCW laws. CCW started slowly through the mid 90's with just one or two US states to a point where most US states will issues concealed weapons permits to those with no criminal record or history of mental illness.
And the violent crime rate has gone down in those areas. People aren't shooting each other over parking spaces or fender benders but people are defending themselves from violent attack. Look it up.

I would foresee a small spike in deaths with an introduction of carry laws. Mainly where some tool attacks someone innocent and gets shot for their trouble. Word will spread soon enough I'd think that starting a fight in a pub might get you dead. No-one should be the victim of assault or robbery for any reason.
Australia would probably become a much politer place.

You also make claims that concealed carry laws would see a spike in violent crime. Are you suggesting the mere presence of a gun will cause crime?
Why would a law abiding firearm owner suddenly engage in armed robbery or home invasions?

Legally owned guns do not cause crime. It's the criminals with the illegally owned ones who generally cause it. Unfortunately the guy who this thread is about decided there was more money in selling illegal guns than selling legal ones.

[3vXT]

Security guards carry guns to protect themselves, not what they are carrying. Believe it or not a bad guy doesn't deserve to die just for stealing something. If they are going to kill someone to take their money its a little different but thats pretty rare, hence, the numbers of security guards using their weapons isn't very high.

I'm not saying the presence of a gun will turn law abiding gun owners into criminals, i'm saying more guns means more chance of them being stolen by people who wont be as law abiding as the original owners.

I'm also not saying that our relatively low crime rate is because of gun control laws, just that because the levels are low there isn't a NEED for more people carrying guns.

The numbers of bad guys that would be deterred from braking into a house would easily be outnumbered by the number of idiots braking in on the chance of finding a firearm.

I'm sorry mate, but common sense and the numbers are against you on this one. If its not broke, don't fix it.

[Gammaboy]

Originally Posted by ken2903

Believe it or not a bad guy doesn't deserve to die just for stealing something.

I dunno... some people just need killin.

[3vXT]

Originally Posted by Gammaboy

I dunno... some people just need killin.

What you need sir is a concealed weapon
:evil3:

EDIT:

Originally Posted by ken2903

Security guards carry guns to protect themselves, not what they are carrying.

I should point out some security work carries more of a risk to the person than other work but, IMO, 99% of the time carrying a firearm is not necessary and in most cases has more to do with appearances and the companies insurance costs than anything else.

[blownvn]

Originally Posted by ken2903

Security guards carry guns to protect themselves, not what they are carrying. Believe it or not a bad guy doesn't deserve to die just for stealing something.

And that's half the problem with the country. Criminals know they can steal stuff and assault people without any drastic consequences.

I'm not saying the presence of a gun will turn law abiding gun owners into criminals, i'm saying more guns means more chance of them being stolen by people who wont be as law abiding as the original owners.

People can already own guns in this country, at last count there are 2.5million registered guns in Australia yet only 1445 guns were stolen in the year of 2005/2006 (those are the latest figures publically available). Gun theft in Australia is barely a blip on the radar. There's no evidence to suggest that'll change with CCW where people will either store their guns as required by the government or carry them on their person.

I'm also not saying that our relatively low crime rate is because of gun control laws, just that because the levels are low there isn't a NEED for more people carrying guns.

See above, but is our crime rate really that good? We certainly do seem to have alot of late night crime in Australia with assaults and violent robbery fairly common in most capitals and around many nightspots. Last time I was in Sydney for work a guy got stabbed to death in an area where I walked every night on the way to the station.

The numbers of bad guys that would be deterred from braking into a house would easily be outnumbered by the number of idiots braking in on the chance of finding a firearm.

Breaking into a house where there are guns, and you are liable to be shot, doesn't make alot of sense if you are a criminal. Generally they prefer their victims unarmed.

I'm sorry mate, but common sense and the numbers are against you on this one. If its not broke, don't fix it.

I'd suggest that common sense would be having the right to defend yourself. Unfortunately guns are an emotive topic and usually people don't use their common sense when discussing them. Typically the response is; "Oh, guns are bad."
I'd also suggest that the guns laws weren't broken in the first place but John Howard seemed intent on "fixing" them anyway. Less than two weeks after Port Arthur we had new gun laws. No discussion, go it our way or else was their statement.
Did it take any guns away from criminals? Nope, it just took guns away from the law abiding. Funnily enough most gun owners took their cheques and bought new guns with their taxpayer funded cheques. Which is why we actually have more guns in Australia now than we did back then.
That money could have been better spent elsewhere.

It's sad that the biggest proponents of gun control seem to be gun owners themselves. Who need the anti gun groups? We seem to be quite happy to bend ourselves over.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by ken2903

Security guards carry guns to protect themselves, not what they are carrying. Believe it or not a bad guy doesn't deserve to die just for stealing something. If they are going to kill someone to take their money its a little different but thats pretty rare, hence, the numbers of security guards using their weapons isn't very high.

I'm not saying the presence of a gun will turn law abiding gun owners into criminals, i'm saying more guns means more chance of them being stolen by people who wont be as law abiding as the original owners.

I'm also not saying that our relatively low crime rate is because of gun control laws, just that because the levels are low there isn't a NEED for more people carrying guns.

The numbers of bad guys that would be deterred from braking into a house would easily be outnumbered by the number of idiots braking in on the chance of finding a firearm.

I'm sorry mate, but common sense and the numbers are against you on this one. If its not broke, don't fix it.

The law specificly states the opposite, the firearm is to protect the item not the person.

[3vXT]

Are you serious? I'd love to see you post a link to that specific law.

I shouldn't have to be the one to explain this to you guys but someone obviously needs to. MOST people with a basic level of intelligence will realize that a human life is worth more than money in a bag, or the contents of your home or even your vehicle. Even a thief shouldn't have to pay for his life for stealing these things.
Do you think the police shoot the bad guys to punish them for their crimes?
Do you think the bad guys deserve to die just because they've decided at some point to do something unimaginably stupid?

Like i said before, i'm hardly some kind of anti-gun jerk. If i was at work (though I don't really do this kind of work anymore) and i thought i was about to be killed and had no way out i would put bullets into the threat repeatedly until i was sure i was safe. At least i hope i would be able to do that, its never come to that. The only situation where a firearm MAY be needed is when someones life is in imminent danger and there is no other alternative or way to escape. There is no other reason for me or anyone else in my position to use a firearm it is as simple as that. You, a security guard, policeman or plumber can use do whatever is reasonable to defend yourself, other people or property. The before mentioned people with a basic level of inteligence understand that ending someones life is not a reasonable reaction to having some money or other property stolen.

You guys don't even understand the basic laws of defense yet you want the right to be able to carry a firearm in public? That is the exact reason i pray it will never happen here. There is a problem with our country because it wont let you morons carry a gun to the shops?

EDIT: Blownvn, you sound like you are about 17 years old and could be forgiven for thinking guns will solve everything. flappist, i've never really agreed with you about anything but i allways imagined you were a little smarter than this. I wont bother with this anymore, you're both welcome to have the last word on it.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by ken2903

Are you serious? I'd love to see you post a link to that specific law.

I shouldn't have to be the one to explain this to you guys but someone obviously needs to. MOST people with a basic level of intelligence will realize that a human life is worth more than money in a bag, or the contents of your home or even your vehicle. Even a thief shouldn't have to pay for his life for stealing these things.
Do you think the police shoot the bad guys to punish them for their crimes?
Do you think the bad guys deserve to die just because they've decided at some point to do something unimaginably stupid?

Like i said before, i'm hardly some kind of anti-gun jerk. If i was at work (though I don't really do this kind of work anymore) and i thought i was about to be killed and had no way out i would put bullets into the threat repeatedly until i was sure i was safe. At least i hope i would be able to do that, its never come to that. The only situation where a firearm MAY be needed is when someones life is in imminent danger and there is no other alternative or way to escape. There is no other reason for me or anyone else in my position to use a firearm it is as simple as that. You, a security guard, policeman or plumber can use do whatever is reasonable to defend yourself, other people or property. The before mentioned people with a basic level of inteligence understand that ending someones life is not a reasonable reaction to having some money or other property stolen.

You guys don't even understand the basic laws of defense yet you want the right to be able to carry a firearm in public? That is the exact reason i pray it will never happen here. There is a problem with our country because it wont let you morons carry a gun to the shops?

EDIT: Blownvn, you sound like you are about 17 years old and could be forgiven for thinking guns will solve everything. flappist, i've never really agreed with you about anything but i allways imagined you were a little smarter than this. I wont bother with this anymore, you're both welcome to have the last word on it.

There is a little bit of confusion here so I will attempt to alleviate it.
I have been involved in the firearms industry directly and indirectly in Australia since the 1980s. I have held dealers, armourers, theatrical ordinance, carry, pistol club and security licences, appeared as an expert and ordinary witness, designed software for weapons registers and even been on the wrong end of the legal system.
I have owned, used and repaired many many types of firearms of every catagory and am qualified in several countries.
I am VERY familiar with the laws in this country, the gun culture and the anti gun culture.
All I have stated in the above thread is either to correct an incorrect statement or expand for clarity.

The laws do not always make sense or are logical, e.g. you can defend money, property and others lives but not your own, you can hunt with a 357 rifle but not a 357 pistol UNLESS you are a property owner etc.
But they are the laws and must be obeyed.

My personal view is that the society in Australia has become so undiciplined, socialist and ignorant that firearms cannot be available anyone any more. On the other hand thay cannot be banned outright either.
This is a very new situation as 30 years ago the largest single concentration of military weapons was schools and we were all trained with them.

The problem is that the do gooders do not understand the reality and as far as they are concerned there ARE NO reasons, so good honest people rebel and do illegal things.

Now compare this to motor enthusiests. This forum is full of people talking about illegal mods to cars, speeding, drifting and all sorts of things that the Scroobies of the world would like to bring in the death penalty for. He hates us about the same as anti gunners hate shooters and has all the same reasons and rhetoric.

Saying thats guns have only one purpose, killing, is no different from saying that V8s (or T6s) have only one purpose, speeding. Those who actually understand the reality know the truth.

If you are for something then it can do no wrong, if against then it can do no right.

Thus is the way or the world.

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by flappist

The laws do not always make sense or are logical, e.g. you can defend money, property and others lives but not your own.

Just so I can get it straight, if I'm a security guard in an armoured truck and a theif manages to get in and grab a few bags of money, I'm free to fire upon him by law with no consequences, yet if he was to open fire on me, by law I'm not allowed to return fire?!

Not trying to be a smartarse or anything (as I'm not versed in that side of the law), just trying to understand the law.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Rodp

Just so I can get it straight, if I'm a security guard in an armoured truck and a theif manages to get in and grab a few bags of money, I'm free to fire upon him by law with no consequences, yet if he was to open fire on me, by law I'm not allowed to return fire?!

Not trying to be a smartarse or anything (as I'm not versed in that side of the law), just trying to understand the law.

No that is not the way it works, you are not ALLOWED to shoot ever.

This is the simple way to explain it.

If you are in fear of your life you can defend it with equal force, that is if you are being shot at you can shoot back TO ALLOW YOU TO RUN AWAY and leave the money or whatever to be stolen, but you will spend a LOT of time being questioned and even more if you actually hit someone.
If you move forward and attack you are committing the crime of murder.
You can only shoot to wound not kill, head shots are looked upon unkindly.
But if you do not have money or goods to defend you cannot have the gun on you in the first place so therefore cannot use it, so even if you were attacked you have committed a crime even if you don't fire a shot.

See I told you it makes no sense, but it is the law.

P.S. rules are the same for the Police, DCS etc....

[HLC]

here;s a little tid bit of information from my experiences working at the shooting academy.



if a CIT guy was getting held up, i for one, would rather he leave his gun holstered.


SECURITY GUYS THAT CARRY ARE SOME OF THE MOST UNSAFE AND DANGEROUS SHOOTERS THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN. and the longer their gun stays in the holster the better.

that is, unless regulations change and they actuall have to learn to shoot.


i feel the same towards coppers. 2 shoots a year does not make someone qualified or skilled enough to carry a firearm to protect people every day.

[troppo]

I've always wondered whether police are taught to wound or kill. It seems to me they kill more often than wound, I guess they just aren't very good at wounding.

[HLC]

Originally Posted by troppo

I've always wondered whether police are taught to wound or kill. It seems to me they kill more often than wound, I guess they just aren't very good at wounding.

as flappist saidm police are trained to respond with equal force.

so in discussing this with a copper mate, who shoots with me, basically, if someone is shooting at him, he can shoot back as neccessary to stop the threat. that was about it. so what is enough to stop the threat? each to his own.

[TURBOTAXI]

Yeah I was typing a long post to explain how people are uninformed and puppets of the media but pressed the wrong button and lost it.

Safe to say in 25 years of shooting I have not killed anyone in hundreds of thousands of discharges. (Though apparently I can still miss computer keys.)

If you are one to allow yourself to be swayed by the media I have some fantastic property to sell you just off the coast of norfolk island........ Wake up.

Guns are metal and wood and dont do anythign without a person attached.

I cant be bothered trying to convince the ignorant of all this. Research some history of how people build political platforms, research the statistics on gun crime- understand the real problem here.

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by flappist

No that is not the way it works, you are not ALLOWED to shoot ever.

This is the simple way to explain it.

If you are in fear of your life you can defend it with equal force, that is if you are being shot at you can shoot back TO ALLOW YOU TO RUN AWAY and leave the money or whatever to be stolen, but you will spend a LOT of time being questioned and even more if you actually hit someone.
If you move forward and attack you are committing the crime of murder.
You can only shoot to wound not kill, head shots are looked upon unkindly.
But if you do not have money or goods to defend you cannot have the gun on you in the first place so therefore cannot use it, so even if you were attacked you have committed a crime even if you don't fire a shot.

See I told you it makes no sense, but it is the law.

P.S. rules are the same for the Police, DCS etc....

It doesn't seem right. I'm all for gun control but those that enforce protection or the law shouldn't have to examine a myriad of scenarios then consult a lawyer before they squeeze the trigger (to miss), it puts them at a tactical disadvantage to begin with.

To arm the public with concealed hand guns just doesn't gel with me though. It'll only make those wanting to rip you off more aggressive. Scumbags that are prepared to rob you won't diminish in numbers because of gun laws, but the 'transaction' won't be as brutal with them. The entire sum of my posessions don't come close to equaling the value of my life to me. Arm the public and those that are willing to fleece the public will arm themselves even more, those that want to take your posessions become a whole lot more lethal.

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by TURBOTAXI

Yeah I was typing a long post to explain how people are uninformed and puppets of the media but pressed the wrong button and lost it.

Safe to say in 25 years of shooting I have not killed anyone in hundreds of thousands of discharges. (Though apparently I can still miss computer keys.)

If you are one to allow yourself to be swayed by the media I have some fantastic property to sell you just off the coast of norfolk island........ Wake up.

Guns are metal and wood and dont do anythign without a person attached.

I cant be bothered trying to convince the ignorant of all this. Research some history of how people build political platforms, research the statistics on gun crime- understand the real problem here.

I don't consider myself ignorant but I also wouldn't arm myself with a gun. However, those willing to steal from me certainly will (and if gun laws were relaxed to the point that anyone can carry one) they will ve wary that I might be armed with one. Automatically, that puts me in a lot more danger.

I'm not calling for a uniform ban on guns. On rural properties, they're absolutely essential. For sporting shooters, no problem. Arming the public, completely against.

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by HLC

as flappist saidm police are trained to respond with equal force.

so in discussing this with a copper mate, who shoots with me, basically, if someone is shooting at him, he can shoot back as neccessary to stop the threat. that was about it. so what is enough to stop the threat? each to his own.

I was always under the impression that police shoot to kill and as far as I'd heard (at least, that's what they were trained to do), if someone is shooting at a police officer, the intent is to kill therefore the equal amount of force is shoot to kill.

I know the Victorian police have the stigma of... *bang* stop or I'll shoot, but I'd rather seen the funeral of a crim over someone who had dedicated their life to protect the community.

[troppo]

Originally Posted by HLC

as flappist saidm police are trained to respond with equal force.

so in discussing this with a copper mate, who shoots with me, basically, if someone is shooting at him, he can shoot back as neccessary to stop the threat. that was about it. so what is enough to stop the threat? each to his own.

I don't have a problem with police responding with lethal (as opposed to equal) force if someone is stupid enough to pull out a firearm against them.
But when you hear of police shooting to kill with people armed with knives, I start wondering. There was an Adelaide incident a few years ago when the parents of a mentally disturbed person called the police to come and restrain their son. They came and shot him after he advanced on them armed with a knife. I'll agree that the heat of the moment and action causes people to react on instinct rather than thought but this particular one seemed like a case where wounding would've been a much more preferable outcome. Another one was a bloke with a knife on Vic beach.

I also disagree with gun control. Personally, I like Switzerland's system of compulsory service and take your weapons with you when you go. Every single male of age in the country has an automatic weapon and knows how to use it but the firearm crime rate is almost non existant.

In my case, I haven't owned a gun or fired a shot in over 15 years, I have no need of one with my current lifestyle. Having said that that, I got my first slug gun at about 11 and by 13 I had joined the pistol club and had my own .22. I was also reloading my own rifle cartridges (my older brother is a pro shooter and had all the reloading gear) well before I was allowed to drive on a public road and never managed to wound another person. Go figure...

[3vXT]

Rodp, it doesn't seem right because it isn't.

I know i said i'd stay out of this but i just can't believe someone with the experience to know better would post some of the stuff in this thread.

As i said before, the police, security guards, your mum and anyone else all have the right to defend themselves, their property and anyone else with reasonable force. It is not reasonable to shoot someone because they are stealing a bag of cash. The only difference between a policeman's right to defend themselves and a regular persons is that the police are more often at risk and so carry firearms.

I have never heard of any civilian (police, security guard or anyone else) being trained to wound someone as a defensive measure. When i was trained i was told that the only reason to use a firearm for defense was to stop a threat. That often means the bad guy gets killed but thats not the direct purpose and is purely incidental. We shoot them to stop an imminent threat to our lives or someone else life. Anyone that tells you otherwise is either full of crap, grossly misinformed or has their own agenda.

For some reason, some people on here seem to want people to believe the crap they are sprouting about imaginary laws they have thought up to prove they are right. The 'security guards are only allowed to use their weapons to defend cash not themselves' rule is the biggest load of crap i have ever heard and is more likely to be heard from some naive teenage boy with no real word experience. This doesn't appear to be the case with flappist so i have no idea why he is suggesting the stuff he is but the simple truth is he is wrong.

If people don't want to believe me thats ok, but please, please go get some reliable, independent information.

[troppo]

Why do you think security guards have an exemption to carry then? I always assumed it was to defend themselves, the cash merely makes them a target.

[3vXT]

Originally Posted by troppo

I always assumed it was to defend themselves, the cash merely makes them a target.

That is exactly why.

Originally Posted by flappist

The law specificly states the opposite, the firearm is to protect the item not the person.

I'm still waiting for a link to something that resembles this though.

[blownvn]

Originally Posted by ken2903

Are you serious? I'd love to see you post a link to that specific law.

I shouldn't have to be the one to explain this to you guys but someone obviously needs to. MOST people with a basic level of intelligence will realize that a human life is worth more than money in a bag, or the contents of your home or even your vehicle. Even a thief shouldn't have to pay for his life for stealing these things.
Do you think the police shoot the bad guys to punish them for their crimes?
Do you think the bad guys deserve to die just because they've decided at some point to do something unimaginably stupid?

Like i said before, i'm hardly some kind of anti-gun jerk. If i was at work (though I don't really do this kind of work anymore) and i thought i was about to be killed and had no way out i would put bullets into the threat repeatedly until i was sure i was safe. At least i hope i would be able to do that, its never come to that. The only situation where a firearm MAY be needed is when someones life is in imminent danger and there is no other alternative or way to escape. There is no other reason for me or anyone else in my position to use a firearm it is as simple as that. You, a security guard, policeman or plumber can use do whatever is reasonable to defend yourself, other people or property. The before mentioned people with a basic level of inteligence understand that ending someones life is not a reasonable reaction to having some money or other property stolen.

You guys don't even understand the basic laws of defense yet you want the right to be able to carry a firearm in public? That is the exact reason i pray it will never happen here. There is a problem with our country because it wont let you morons carry a gun to the shops?

EDIT: Blownvn, you sound like you are about 17 years old and could be forgiven for thinking guns will solve everything. flappist, i've never really agreed with you about anything but i allways imagined you were a little smarter than this. I wont bother with this anymore, you're both welcome to have the last word on it.

Ah yes, criminals aren't bad people, they're just misunderstood.
:

If criminals feel their lives are worth more than a bag of cash then they shouldn't steal, it doesn't get much simpler than that.
Why should anyone stand aside and let some criminal steal everything they own?
The fact is I wouldn't stand aside so then the criminal has the choice to not pursue the matter or to attack and force me to give up my possessions. While I do value my life I also value the things I've spent my whole life (certainly longer than 17 years) to earn.

I understand the self defense laws of NSW, which have thankfully been changed from the old of equal force. These days NSW residents can use up to and including lethal force if they believe their life is immediate danger. They can use non lethal force to prevent robbery from their home. See the home invasion act of NSW.

As for police training they are trained to shoot centre of mass, not to wound. For knife wielding situations Tasers are a useful tool that have recently been adopted by NSW police and hopefully this will prove to be a safer method of apprehension for all involved.

Not arming ourselves because criminals might go out and get better weapons doesn't really work. They are already armed, this constant message of "give them whatever they want" doesn't deter crime one bit.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by ken2903

That is exactly why.




I'm still waiting for a link to something that resembles this though.

Don't you know how to use google?

I am paraquoting from the weapons regs, weapons acts and criminal codes. Books not web sites. The ones I bought when studying all this stuff before I did all the exams.

[3vXT]

Originally Posted by blownvn

Ah yes, criminals aren't bad people, they're just misunderstood.
:

If criminals feel their lives are worth more than a bag of cash then they shouldn't steal, it doesn't get much simpler than that.
Why should anyone stand aside and let some criminal steal everything they own?
The fact is I wouldn't stand aside so then the criminal has the choice to not pursue the matter or to attack and force me to give up my possessions. While I do value my life I also value the things I've spent my whole life (certainly longer than 17 years) to earn.

Nope, criminals are bad people but they are people just the same. Forget about legal issues for a second though, it is not ok to end someones life, even a criminal, for stealing your possessions. Is your stuff worth more than someones life?
I understand what your saying, give people the right to own a firearm for defense and the criminals that want to risk there lives will be sorted out pretty quickly, while the others will think twice. The problem is that using lethal force isn't punishment for a crime, its to prevent a crime. The mindset of you and others is just so far off track that people (the criminal ones) will start being shot for crimes that simply do not warrant the use of lethal force.
We don't execute a person who murders another man, but you would take someones life because they would steal your possessions? If the bad guy ran outside and was caught by the police, would you go to court and demand the death penalty for him? I know chances are he would get away, but even that is better than ending his life.

I wouldn't stand aside and let some guy walk out of my home with my tv or my laptop, i would (or hope i would anyway ) do whatever was reasonable to stop them. I value the contents of my home as much as the next guy but none of it is worth someones life.
It is not, and should never be, up to the general public to punish a criminal for their crimes. Thats not to say the justice system is perfect, not even close IMO, but it is better than people carrying guns and believing that they should be allowed to use lethal force to defend their plasma tv's.

If you are so concerned with protecting yourself and your family, have you taken up any type of martial arts? You can take your arms and legs into church without feeling guilty, you never leave them at home by mistake, there is roughly 0% chance they will be stolen, they are always loaded, and by the time you are proficient in their uses you will have developed enough respect for them that you will probably use them more wisely than someone that signs a few forms, does a one or two day course and buys a firearm.

[3vXT]

Originally Posted by flappist

Don't you know how to use google?

I am paraquoting from the weapons regs, weapons acts and criminal codes. Books not web sites. The ones I bought when studying all this stuff before I did all the exams.

I am 99% sure you are wrong but to be fair, i did do a quick search and couldn't find anything. I asked you for a link because i know you can't provide one. I don't mean to sound rude and i honestly oppologise if it sounds that way, but the things you are posting are more damaging to your credibility and your position on the subject than it would be if you said nothing.

[HLC]

Originally Posted by ken2903

Nope, criminals are bad people but they are people just the same. Forget about legal issues for a second though, it is not ok to end someones life, even a criminal, for stealing your possessions. Is your stuff worth more than someones life?
I understand what your saying, give people the right to own a firearm for defense and the criminals that want to risk there lives will be sorted out pretty quickly, while the others will think twice. The problem is that using lethal force isn't punishment for a crime, its to prevent a crime. The mindset of you and others is just so far off track that people (the criminal ones) will start being shot for crimes that simply do not warrant the use of lethal force.
We don't execute a person who murders another man, but you would take someones life because they would steal your possessions? If the bad guy ran outside and was caught by the police, would you go to court and demand the death penalty for him? I know chances are he would get away, but even that is better than ending his life.

I wouldn't stand aside and let some guy walk out of my home with my tv or my laptop, i would (or hope i would anyway ) do whatever was reasonable to stop them. I value the contents of my home as much as the next guy but none of it is worth someones life.
It is not, and should never be, up to the general public to punish a criminal for their crimes. Thats not to say the justice system is perfect, not even close IMO, but it is better than people carrying guns and believing that they should be allowed to use lethal force to defend their plasma tv's.

If you are so concerned with protecting yourself and your family, have you taken up any type of martial arts? You can take your arms and legs into church without feeling guilty, you never leave them at home by mistake, there is roughly 0% chance they will be stolen, they are always loaded, and by the time you are proficient in their uses you will have developed enough respect for them that you will probably use them more wisely than someone that signs a few forms, does a one or two day course and buys a firearm.

you are taking it way out of context.

you say if we have guns, every dude that breaks into someones home to steal something WILL get shot.

don't you think that the thought or risk of knowing there may be a firearm there wont scare crims away.

its as much a preventive measure as it is a solution if you look at it like that.

and for example, if i broke into someones house and i had a gun pointed at my head, i'd be bailing pretty quickly, or surrendering. because you are right, possesions are not worth more than my life, and why would i risk my life for some crap that ill steal or whatever.

[troppo]

Originally Posted by ken2903

That is exactly why.

Aren't they the same thing though? As in the cash is the objective and the guards are the obstruction. The guard's job is to defend the cash so it's really the cash that makes them a target by default?

[HLC]

Originally Posted by ken2903

I am 99% sure you are wrong but to be fair, i did do a quick search and couldn't find anything. I asked you for a link because i know you can't provide one. I don't mean to sound rude and i honestly oppologise if it sounds that way, but the things you are posting are more damaging to your credibility and your position on the subject than it would be if you said nothing.

and what background do you have in the firearms industry?

as far as i know, flappist is the be all and end all on this forum when it comes to laws and regs etc regarding firearms.