[Roderick]

This is from David Shoebridge's site:
Shoebridge

Quote

C. Media Comment by Greens NSW Firearms spokesperson David Shoebridge:

“To appease the Shooters Party in NSW Parliament the NSW Police Minister continues to credit guns used in crime to illegal imports, despite federal evidence to the contrary,” Mr Shoebridge said

“Federal Home Affairs Minister Jason Clare has made it clear that most illegal guns come from the domestic black market, including firearms which were not declared in the 1996 gun buyback.

“Others have been sourced from dishonest firearms dealers or have been stolen from registered firearms owners.

“While some importation of illegal firearms occurs on an ‘opportunistic’ and ‘ad hoc’ basis, the local black market is clearly an issue; it is disgraceful that due to political pressure the Police Minister is continuing to ignore it.

“When asked questions on notice about where guns used in drive-by shootings came from, Minister Gallacher said that sourcing this information would be an ‘unreasonable diversion of police resources’.

“Working out how many of the guns used in drive by shootings were stolen from licensed forearms owners is crucial to working out a response to firearms crime.

“The federal government has done some of the NSW Police Minister’s job for him, concluding that 99 per cent of weapons used in illegal shootings came from local sources, not imported.

“We have to ask whether the Police Minister’s continued inaction on this issue stems from a desire to not upset the Shooters Party in NSW Parliament.

“Given the amount of community concern about drive-by shootings in this State, it is astounding that the Police Minister hasn’t even bothered to find out where guns used in crime came from.

“The Minister appears to have his head in the sand on this issue which has serious consequences for the safety of the people of NSW,” Mr Shoebridge said.

The usual political posturing from 'Sandalplank' but note the highlighted part; how would the Federal Government know that 99% of the weapons used were from local sources if less than that percentage have been recovered; perhaps David might deign to tell us?
-----------------------------------------
As this is legitimate political discussion and I have not indulged in any personal abuse, then I assume that it is OK to continue to pursue the topic, albeit in a new thread.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[headwerkn]

Much like a vegetarian and a hearty piece of rump steak, David Shoebridge and factual information are two things that never seem to meet.

I thought it was the Australian Institute of Criminology that stated categorically that firearms stolen from legal owners constitute a mere fraction of a percent of firearms recovered from criminal activity?

Think about the situation logically for a second. Criminals (at least the ones who know what they're doing) want conceal-ability, power and (apparently, though to a lesser extent) image. That means pistols; not old farmyard bunny guns, not target rifles, not big game rifles and not long range precision (aka sniper). Yes, a shotgun can be sawn-down to make it somewhat more concealable, but it is still a pants-load compared to a 3" barrel handguns.

Where the theories of Shoebridge and Co. fall over is that only a small fraction of legal firearm owners actually own handguns.... I don't have stats on me, but I believe it is somewhere in the order of less than 10% overall. Though legal to own, getting the necessary Cat H rating on your licence is an involved and rather expensive process, requiring club membership, a certain number of shoots per year and probationary periods before you're to actually own one. Then there are much stricter storage requirements once you are allowed to start buying, and you're certainly not allowed to shoot them away from designated firing ranges. I live on 80 acres of bush miles from anywhere and could probably justify shooting a .50BMG rifle if I really wanted to (just need a decent backstop... father in law has a 5t back hoe, no problem) yet were I to be caught firing even a .22LR pistol out at the back paddock, I'd be in deep, deep poo.


To what extent illegally imported guns are making their way into Australia each year is anyone's guess, but there are so many already in circulation throughout the black market, it really makes little difference in the end. The punk might want a snazzy Glock so he can be all "gangster" and so on, but a 40 year old ex-police S&W revolver will still achieve the same result when the trigger is pulled.

Overall, where most have got the gun crime issue wrong is calling it a "gun" problem rather than a "crime" problem. Even if you take away the guns (assuming you could), the criminal justification for weapons would still remain. Then what are you going to do - ban all knives, cricket bats, baseball bats, crow bars, cars, anything and everything that can be used to make explosives, 4x2 pieces of hardwood and the right to form a fist with your hands?

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Roderick]

David is at it again, after being all in favour of gun registration and licencing of firearm owners he and his Green cohorts seem to be unhappy that law-abiding fellow Australians are complying with the law and following their chosen legal rights to own firearms and to take an interest in them.
Now David et al are going crook that hunting is being presented as a legitimate occupation, one moreover that entails lots of healthy walking out in the healthful air away from the pollution of the roadside cafes of inner suburbia. Latte and exhaust fumes are not as healthy as a whiff of gun-smoke and plenty of fresh air.

But why are the Greens opposed to hunting?

I've been away for most of the past fortnight after the foxes and on one property alone we got 23 and over the two weeks we accounted for a grand total of 87. Now that's a lot of native wildlife saved and far more was done by us, in a practical way, than all of Shoebridge's posturings before the media.

David's latest:

Quote

O’Farrell government joins with merchants of death to promote guns, hunting and shooting
by David

The gun lobby’s hold on the O’Farrell government has further tightened with the State government now going to the extremes of joining with Gaddafi’s weapons supplier ‘Beretta’ and other gun manufacturers to co-sponsor this weekend’s two day ‘Shot Expo’ in Sydney promoting guns, knives and pistols from across the globe.

See the Sun Herald reporting on this.

Greens MP and Firearms Spokesperson David Shoebridge said:

"This State government has no limits on how far it will go in promoting a pro-gun culture, including joining with death merchants to plug guns and hunting.

"It is just astounding that the NSW government's hunting body, the Game Council, is using taxpayers dollars to co-sponsor a pro-guns event with weapons manufacturers.

"The Game Council is simply out of control, and the Premier is now joined at the hip to them through his ongoing deals with the Shooters Party in Parliament.

"Most people will be rightly appalled when they hear that the O'Farrell government is co-sponsoring the 'Shot Expo' with a gun manufacturer that sold millions of dollars of small arms to the Gaddafi regime.

“In 2009 Beretta sold 11,000 pistols and rifles to Libya’s internal security forces, and this is the very same company that the O’Farrell government is now joining with to promote gun ownership in NSW.

“Not satisfied with getting shooters into National Parks the O’Farrell government is now getting out there and doing its best to sell more weapons.

"NSW has run down hospitals, broken public transport and thousands of public servants being sacked, but the O'Farrell government still has the cash to promote gun ownership and hunting.

“This is a government which is developing increasingly skewed priorities for public spending and public safety,” Mr Shoebridge said.

David | June 17, 2012 at 7:48 am

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Roderick]

The Greens war on hunting is something of a racist problem.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Frogman]

Roderick, on 21 June 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

The Greens war on hunting is something of a racist problem.

How do you figure that?

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Roderick]

Simple, the Greens are against hunting therefore they must be against Indigenous Australians following their cultural heritage and hunting; this is racist.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[scotto]

Roderick, on 21 June 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

Simple, the Greens are against hunting therefore they must be against Indigenous Australians following their cultural heritage and hunting; this is racist.

ROTFL

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Roderick]

scotto, on 21 June 2012 - 09:43 PM, said:

ROTFL

Yeah, they're always good for a laugh.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Roderick]

Quote

B. Media comment by Greens NSW Local Government spokesperson David Shoebridge:

“The huge difference between the number of reported dog attacks and the number of dogs declared dangerous requires a substantive response from the Minister,” Mr Shoebridge said.

“There have been over 15,000 dog attacks reported in NSW since the beginning of 2009, yet in the same period only around 1,000 dogs have been declared dangerous.

“The figures show that local authorities are failing to act to protect people from dangerous dogs.

“In the 2010/11 and 2011/12 financial years there were 10,254 reported dog attacked, yet from 2010 to date there have been only 754 dogs declared dangerous.

“This level of inaction is placing public safety at risk.

“The Minister has told local councils that they must take dangerous dogs seriously, yet he himself has done nothing on the issue.

“In Mirabooka recently, a young woman was attacked by two Staffordshire terriers and received serious injuries to her head and arms.

“The local Society of Companion Animal Rescuers had warned the RSPCA, Lake Macquarie Council and Local Government Minister Don Page about these dogs, and all had failed to take action.

“Waiting until someone is seriously injured by a dangerous dog is too late, the Minister must become proactive to ensure that reports of dog attacks are properly dealt with.

“The 2004 review of the Companion Animals Act recommended further consideration of the ’need for and the possibility of introducing an option for people to refer nuisance cat and dog issues to Local Courts if dissatisfied with councils’ decisions or perceived inaction’.

“The Greens have a notice of motion before the NSW Upper House to refer to the Law and Justice Committee the issue of whether people should be able to refer dangerous dogs directly to local courts if the authorities fail to act.

“In the interest of public safety and animal welfare, The Greens are calling on Local Minister Don Page to support the immediate consideration of this law reform,” Mr Shoebridge said.

David is right; but how can one defend oneself from an attacking dog?

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Frogman]

Was the answer you were fishing for (see what i did there?) "Shoot it?"

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Roderick]

Frogman, on 02 July 2012 - 10:13 AM, said:

Was the answer you were fishing for (see what i did there?) "Shoot it?"

No, I'd genuinely like to know just how a human defends itself against an attacking dog, especially when it is against the law to carry any type of weapon or thing for the purpose of self defence. In this country it is an offence to carry a walking stick with the intention of fending off an attacking dog.

How would you defend yourself, Frogman?

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Frogman]

I dont know, I have never been put in that situation. Given my history with dogs, I would try to put as much distance between me and it as possible. If that didnt work, I would try to subdue it.

If you are asking me in what order I would move my limbs, you are SOL.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[scotto]

Roderick, on 22 June 2012 - 08:20 AM, said:

Yeah, they're always good for a laugh.

Gee.... if they are against everyone hunting, this clearly cannot be racist, can it?

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Roderick]

Frogman, on 02 July 2012 - 12:38 PM, said:

I dont know, I have never been put in that situation. Given my history with dogs, I would try to put as much distance between me and it as possible. If that didnt work, I would try to subdue it.

If you are asking me in what order I would move my limbs, you are SOL.

How would you subdue it?

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Roderick]

scotto, on 02 July 2012 - 01:54 PM, said:

Gee.... if they are against everyone hunting, this clearly cannot be racist, can it?

It most certainly is because some indigenous people still hunt to live, the Greens are clearly attacking their cultural heritage.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Frogman]

Roderick, on 02 July 2012 - 02:14 PM, said:

How would you subdue it?

I would enter zen mode, where I have 9 lives, then I would execute an uppercut, which should do 5 hp worth of damage, then I will kick its face in which will do 3 hp of crushing damage, then I will cast magic missile, which should finish it of.

Do you have any more really stupid questions that I can mock and laugh at?

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Roderick]

Frogman, on 02 July 2012 - 02:42 PM, said:

I would enter zen mode, where I have 9 lives, then I would execute an uppercut, which should do 5 hp worth of damage, then I will kick its face in which will do 3 hp of crushing damage, then I will cast magic missile, which should finish it of.

Do you have any more really stupid questions that I can mock and laugh at?

In other words you'd need a weapon of some sort and the Greens are dead set against anyone defending themselves, and you won't say it.

Have a good hearty laugh at the next poor soul that is savaged by an out of control dog.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Frogman]

No you amazingly dense lump of atoms.

You asked me to tell you what I would do in a situation that 1) I have never been in before 2) Is amazingly heated and would be full of adrenaline for anyone involved 3) Doesnt happen all that often

There is no way I could answer that with any degree of certainty, and anyone with any sort of common sense or logic could tell you that. Any answer I gave would have been as useful as the one that I did. But noooooo, you had to miss the point in such an amazingly idiotic way that now I have to type this out to spell it out for you in a way that is frankly, fucking painful for me. It hurts me to think that there are people voting who cant quite grasp basic logic. It annoys me that you want to score cheap points of what is a rare tragedy. Next you will be bleating on about asylum seekers and how they are economic migrants, as if that makes any difference to the matter.

In other words, ask sensible questions, and you might get a sensible answer.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Roderick]

Frogman, on 02 July 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:

No you amazingly dense lump of atoms.

You asked me to tell you what I would do in a situation that 1) I have never been in before 2) Is amazingly heated and would be full of adrenaline for anyone involved 3) Doesnt happen all that often

There is no way I could answer that with any degree of certainty, and anyone with any sort of common sense or logic could tell you that. Any answer I gave would have been as useful as the one that I did. But noooooo, you had to miss the point in such an amazingly idiotic way that now I have to type this out to spell it out for you in a way that is frankly, fucking painful for me. It hurts me to think that there are people voting who cant quite grasp basic logic. It annoys me that you want to score cheap points of what is a rare tragedy. Next you will be bleating on about asylum seekers and how they are economic migrants, as if that makes any difference to the matter.

In other words, ask sensible questions, and you might get a sensible answer.

". . . .Doesnt happen all that often"

Quote

“There have been over 15,000 dog attacks reported in NSW since the beginning of 2009, yet in the same period only around 1,000 dogs have been declared dangerous.

as stated by David Shoebridge of the Greens, speaking in the NSW Parliament.
Another Green lie?
Have a good laugh the next time a child suffers dog bites.

What do you think that you would you do if you were attacked by a dog?

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Roderick]

Quote

The first fatality resulting from a dog attack in Western Australia occurred in 1995 when a
83 year old woman died after being attacked by more than one Rottweiler in the
backyard of her home. The victim had earlier complained to the local council about the
dogs being on the loose.
13

My link

Now, Frogman, what do you think that you might have done to save the old lady had you been passing bye. Ring the police?

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.