Ebay Gun Ban Fanatics

You are wasting your breath. Too Many Trolls is an anti-gun nut -- read some of the threads that arose here shortly after the Virginia Tech shooting to see how he distorts the words of those who disagree with him, and continually changes the subject.

Thanks Doug. I will take appropriate action.

This is typical of Too-Many-Trolls and people who think like them. Blame the machine, not the criminal. Over and over it comes up. In this case, if a gun is stolen from me and the criminal who stole it then misuses it, it's _my_ fault, even though I'm also a victim of that criminal. The mind boggles at the thought process involved.

I don't think good intentions enter into it. TMT has a pathological fear of inanimate objects and an irrational willingness to blame everyone but the guilty.

Sorry, Bob, I guess I got carried away with all the other "undocumented" whatevers on the news.

I guess for an undocumented worker to be a criminal, they must be caught, charged, and convicted?

Define "secure" and who is to be the judge of what is secure and what is not?

Friend had his weapons stolen from his 3/8" thick plate steel gun vault. Perps used a cutting torch to cut it open. They had to cut a hole in the vault itself, as the lock was an electric one, unaccessable to the torch.

Did he use reasonable care in securing it?

Be specific.

Ill bet that most antigun nuts consider "secure" to mean incased in a

10'x10' block of concrete resting on the bottom of the Marianas Trench.

Gunner

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 22:28:11 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote in :

Q>On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 03:35:37 GMT, mov edags

Q>wrote: Q>

Q>>

Q>>If "A" doesn't secure his guns, and someone steals them and uses Q>>them to murder person "B" should "A" should the family of Q>>"B" be able to take legal action against "A"? [In your opinion, Q>>or the opinion of other readers of this thread, of course.] Q>

Q>Define "secure" and who is to be the judge of what is secure and what Q>is not?

Total security is probably unachievable even by governments, let alone by individuals.

In the case of gun owners in Australia, storage is governed by the various states and territories. However, these are almost identical.

Basically, guns and ammo have to be locked up separately. Storage is checked more or less at random by the state police.

Q>

Q>Friend had his weapons stolen from his 3/8" thick plate steel gun Q>vault. Perps used a cutting torch to cut it open. They had to cut a Q>hole in the vault itself, as the lock was an electric one, Q>unaccessable to the torch. Q>

Q>Did he use reasonable care in securing it?

I would think so. Q>

Q>Be specific. Q>

Q>Ill bet that most antigun nuts consider "secure" to mean incased in a Q>10'x10' block of concrete resting on the bottom of the Marianas Q>Trench.

Q>Gunner

I am not an anti-gun nut, but I would agree that some are probably this extreme.

I suppose you have noted that extremists of all types seem to be on the rise.

In the original post, I was referring to having guns or even loaded ones scattered around the house.

Deadly self defense isn't encouraged here. If someone shoots an intruder, he or she would usually be arrested and have to justify their actions in court.

Which means that they would have to prove that his life was actually in danger, and that there was no chance of retreat.

The law definitely doesn't people to take the law into their hands, especially on mere trespassing or theft offenses.

Australia does still have a death penalty on the books for certain crimes, but it hasn't been used in decades.

Most people here have little or no interest in guns, those who do are generally licensed, and most of them don't think the requirements are that unreasonable.

Cheers,

aaaah, you know, I'm something of an anti-gun in urban setting guy, but when I was in Adelaide a few months ago, a guy was picked up for shooting several others, outside a bar, I think, and there was a gang going around roughing up and robbing older folks in the pubs - a sort of takeover robbery - at least that's what the TV news said. On the other hand, you are fortunate in not having an NRA to make ludicrous claims

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 23:42:25 -0700, "William Noble" wrote in :

Q>aaaah, you know, I'm something of an anti-gun in urban setting guy, but when Q>I was in Adelaide a few months ago, a guy was picked up for shooting several Q>others, outside a bar, I think, and there was a gang going around roughing Q>up and robbing older folks in the pubs - a sort of takeover robbery - at Q>least that's what the TV news said.

I didn't happen to hear about it, but as am in Sydney don't necessarily pay much attention to news from other states.

In any case, it doesn't really matter which world city one lives in, there is always the possibility of violence of one sort or another.

Q>On the other hand, you are fortunate in Q>not having an NRA to make ludicrous claims

I hear that they have been known to get somewhat carried away with some claims.

With the Internet, though, doesn't matter if they have members here or not. There are still people here who will believe all they say.

As you have been here, am reasonably confident that you found Australia a fairly peaceful place.

Most of the murders here are among relatives or friends, and guns aren't often used.

There is more violence in the Northern Territory than in New South Wales or South Australia.

There is a federal election coming up in Australia, probably in the next couple of months. For info on the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Bill 2007, a search on Google will provide you with some information.

Bill has now been passed, but some background info at

It is a fairly complex issue, involving the original inhabitants of the country, land rights, and whether they should be bound by Australian law.

The stimulus for the law was basically child abuse cases involving very young children, a lot of drug abuse such as heavy drinking, petrol [gasoline] sniffing, and so on.

Cheers,

Q>

Q>

Q>

Q>>

Q>> Most people here have little or no interest in guns, those who do Q>> are generally licensed, and most of them don't think the Q>> requirements are that unreasonable. Q>>

Q>> Cheers, Q>>

Q>>

Q>>

As they should.

Why should anyone retreat, particularly in ones domicile?

Take the law into their own hands....humm....so then only the State is allowed to protect the citizens from criminals.

Not according to the majority of Aussie gun owners that I know.

Gunner Asch

Which ludicrous claims might you be refering to? Be specific, use as much white space as necessary.

Be prepared to be spanked hard for your aspersions.

Oh...btw...Austrailia has at least 5 National Rifle Associations

Now about those "ludicrous claims"?

Gunner

I'm curious, which claims does the NRA make that you find ludicrous?

Do you realize how stupid this sounds?

McDonald's is an American corporation too - by your logic, they should sell firearms as well as burgers.

"Would you like a Glock with that?"

Did you notice how much support he didn't get from other pro-gun folks such as myself?

Yes please. I'm trying to collect the set.

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 03:40:49 -0700, Gunner wrote in :

Q>On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 02:48:54 GMT, mov edags

Q>wrote: Q>

Q>>On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 22:28:11 -0700, Gunner Asch Q>> wrote in Q>> : Q>>

Q>>Q>On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 03:35:37 GMT, mov edags Q>>

Q>>Q>wrote: Q>>Q>

Q>>Q>>

Q>>Q>>If "A" doesn't secure his guns, and someone steals them and Q>>uses Q>>Q>>them to murder person "B" should "A" should the family of Q>>Q>>"B" be able to take legal action against "A"? [In your Q>>opinion, Q>>Q>>or the opinion of other readers of this thread, of course.] Q>>Q>

Q>>Q>Define "secure" and who is to be the judge of what is secure Q>>and what Q>>Q>is not? Q>>

Q>>Total security is probably unachievable even by governments, let Q>>alone by individuals. Q>>

Q>>In the case of gun owners in Australia, storage is governed Q>>by the various states and territories. However, these Q>>are almost identical. Q>>

Q>>Basically, guns and ammo have to be locked up separately. Storage Q>>is checked more or less at random by the state Q>>police. Q>>

Q>>Q>

Q>>Q>Friend had his weapons stolen from his 3/8" thick plate steel Q>>gun Q>>Q>vault. Perps used a cutting torch to cut it open. They had to Q>>cut a Q>>Q>hole in the vault itself, as the lock was an electric one, Q>>Q>unaccessable to the torch. Q>>Q>

Q>>Q>Did he use reasonable care in securing it? Q>>

Q>> I would think so. Q>>Q>

Q>>Q>Be specific. Q>>Q>

Q>>Q>Ill bet that most antigun nuts consider "secure" to mean Q>>incased in a Q>>Q>10'x10' block of concrete resting on the bottom of the Marianas Q>>Q>Trench. Q>>

Q>>Q>Gunner Q>>

Q>> I am not an anti-gun nut, but I would agree that some are Q>>probably this extreme. Q>>

Q>>I suppose you have noted that extremists of all types seem to be Q>>on the rise. Q>>

Q>>In the original post, I was referring to having guns or even Q>>loaded ones scattered around the house. Q>>

Q>>Deadly self defense isn't encouraged here. If someone shoots Q>>an intruder, he or she would usually be arrested and have Q>>to justify their actions in court. Q>

Q>As they should.

Agreed, although Australian law doesn't consider "self defense" as a valid reason to get a gun license.

If the gun owner is simply defending property, the view is that they should summon the police, not take the law into their own hands as judge, jury, and executioner.

Remember that Australia hasn't used the death penalty for decades. Q>>

Q>>Which means that they would have to prove that his life was Q>>actually in danger, and that there was no chance of retreat. Q>

Q>Why should anyone retreat, particularly in ones domicile? Q>>

You probably should ask the people who wrote the law. :-) Perhaps because Australia has a universal health care system for everyone, and they don't want to pay to treat either the homeowner or the thief for gunshot wounds.

Consider that the supposed thief might have entered the house by mistake without intending to steal anything. Some people do leave their doors unlocked or even open.

Or consider that the person actually does take something? He still may not be legally responsible. He may be seriously retarded and have the mental capacity of a child.

He may have another form of mental illness, perhaps he is under the delusion the item is his.

If he is a first offender, he probably won't be imprisoned anyway, and if he is, the penalty will be far less than death or even injury.

One could just as easily ask why the householder would be willing to shoot or kill another human for, say, a t.v. set that may not be worth $200, especially since that he would probably have home and contents insurance anyway?

Q>>The law definitely doesn't people to take the law into their Q>>hands, especially on mere trespassing or theft offenses. Q>

Q>Take the law into their own hands....humm....so then only the State is Q>allowed to protect the citizens from criminals.

Essentially. That is what the police are employed for, after all.

The US has far more gun deaths than Australia, so it is a bit of an open question if it is any safer than Australia. Q>>

Q>>Australia does still have a death penalty on the books for Q>>certain crimes, but it hasn't been used in decades. Q>>

Q>>Most people here have little or no interest in guns, those who do Q>>are generally licensed, and most of them don't think the Q>>requirements are that unreasonable. Q>

Q>Not according to the majority of Aussie gun owners that I know.

The ones you know aren't licensed, or if they are, they don't like the storage requirements? :-)

Almost all countries have laws that are unpopular with some citizens. I don't suppose drunken drivers like being arrested as the result of a random breath test.

Most of the law- abiding drivers don't mind, though. They are willing to endure a random breath test if it leads to greater safety by keeping drunken and unlicensed drivers off the road.

If any law is unpopular enough, then the voters will simply toss out the government that brought it in at the next election and elect the opposing party if they promise to repeal it.

The current gun laws were passed simply because the majority of Australians were shocked by the Port Arthur massacre. Quite a few apparently wanted private gun ownership completely banned.

A large percentage of voters live in large cities. Hunting on most public land is banned, and farmers and stockmen are going to be pretty fussy who they allow on their land. They don't like stock or water tanks shot up by careless shooters.

Since 1920 or so it has been very difficult to get a license to carry a handgun, and the present laws mostly relate to rifles and shotguns.

A license is required to own any firearm, or even a replica handgun, for that matter. Self-defense is not considered an adequate reason to own any firearm, let alone a handgun.

The penalties for any unlicensed firearm are pretty stiff, let alone a handgun.

Cheers,

I live out in the country and a call to the Sheriff's department will result in a very minimum of 30 minutes to respond. By that time, there is no telling what some hopped up character from LA (we are only about 3 hours from LA and every week end our roads are over populated with LA people who don't seem to share my idea of personal safety). Leaving the crime problem completely up to the police doesn't work. They can only act after the crime has been committed. I would rather explain to the judge why I shot some guy trying to do me harm than watch the grass grow from below. A cousin of mine was the Sheriff of Yolo county in California. Part of that county included parts of the Sacramento area. He advised people in the outlying areas to get themselves a shotgun for protection as his deputies would not be able to respond to calls from the outlying areas in less than

30 minutes.

10 hours since I posed that question this morning..and Im still waiting for an answer.

I wonder if he will actually respond so he can be bitch slapped for that buffoonish statement and its implications.

Gunner

They would, if it wasn't for political correctness.

Bullets extra.

Yet in most countries that are either afraid of its citizens, or are totalitarian, that ability is not considered a Right and is abrogated by the State.

The UK and Oz are prime examples of Hybrids between a State afraid of its citizens and in response is becoming totalitarian.

Gunner

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 20:35:56 -0700, Too_Many_Tools wrote in :

Q>On Aug 18, 2:22 pm, "Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote: Q>> I live out in the country and a call to the Sheriff's department will result Q>> in a very minimum of 30 minutes to respond. By that time, there is no Q>> telling what some hopped up character from LA (we are only about 3 hours Q>> from LA and every week end our roads are over populated with LA people who Q>> don't seem to share my idea of personal safety). Leaving the crime problem Q>> completely up to the police doesn't work. They can only act after the crime Q>> has been committed. I would rather explain to the judge why I shot some guy Q>> trying to do me harm than watch the grass grow from below. Q>> A cousin of mine was the Sheriff of Yolo county in California. Part of that Q>> county included parts of the Sacramento area. He advised people in the Q>> outlying areas to get themselves a shotgun for protection as his deputies Q>> would not be able to respond to calls from the outlying areas in less than Q>> 30 minutes. Q>>

Q>> news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com... Q>>

Q>>

Q>>

Q>> > On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 03:40:49 -0700, Gunner Q>> > wrote in Q>> > : Q>>

Q>> > Q>On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 02:48:54 GMT, mov edags Q>> > Q>> > Q>wrote: Q>> > Q>

Q>> > Q>>On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 22:28:11 -0700, Gunner Asch Q>> > Q>> wrote in Q>> > Q>> : Q>> > Q>>

Q>> > Q>>Q>On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 03:35:37 GMT, mov edags Q>> > Q>>

Q>> > Q>>Q>wrote: Q>> > Q>>Q>

Q>> > Q>>Q>>

Q>> > Q>>Q>>If "A" doesn't secure his guns, and someone steals them and Q>> > Q>>uses Q>> > Q>>Q>>them to murder person "B" should "A" should the family of Q>> > Q>>Q>>"B" be able to take legal action against "A"? [In your Q>> > Q>>opinion, Q>> > Q>>Q>>or the opinion of other readers of this thread, of course.] Q>> > Q>>Q>

Q>> > Q>>Q>Define "secure" and who is to be the judge of what is secure Q>> > Q>>and what Q>> > Q>>Q>is not? Q>> > Q>>

Q>> > Q>>Total security is probably unachievable even by governments, Q>> > let Q>> > Q>>alone by individuals. Q>> > Q>>

Q>> > Q>>In the case of gun owners in Australia, storage is governed Q>> > Q>>by the various states and territories. However, these Q>> > Q>>are almost identical. Q>> > Q>>

Q>> > Q>>Basically, guns and ammo have to be locked up separately. Q>> > Storage Q>> > Q>>is checked more or less at random by the state Q>> > Q>>police. Q>> > Q>>

Q>> > Q>>Q>

Q>> > Q>>Q>Friend had his weapons stolen from his 3/8" thick plate Q>> > steel Q>> > Q>>gun Q>> > Q>>Q>vault. Perps used a cutting torch to cut it open. They had Q>> > to Q>> > Q>>cut a Q>> > Q>>Q>hole in the vault itself, as the lock was an electric one, Q>> > Q>>Q>unaccessable to the torch. Q>> > Q>>Q>

Q>> > Q>>Q>Did he use reasonable care in securing it? Q>> > Q>>

Q>> > Q>> I would think so. Q>> > Q>>Q>

Q>> > Q>>Q>Be specific. Q>> > Q>>Q>

Q>> > Q>>Q>Ill bet that most antigun nuts consider "secure" to mean Q>> > Q>>incased in a Q>> > Q>>Q>10'x10' block of concrete resting on the bottom of the Q>> > Marianas Q>> > Q>>Q>Trench. Q>> > Q>>

Q>> > Q>>Q>Gunner Q>> > Q>>

Q>> > Q>> I am not an anti-gun nut, but I would agree that some are Q>> > Q>>probably this extreme. Q>> > Q>>

Q>> > Q>>I suppose you have noted that extremists of all types seem to Q>> > be Q>> > Q>>on the rise. Q>> > Q>>

Q>> > Q>>In the original post, I was referring to having guns or even Q>> > Q>>loaded ones scattered around the house. Q>> > Q>>

Q>> > Q>>Deadly self defense isn't encouraged here. If someone shoots Q>> > Q>>an intruder, he or she would usually be arrested and have Q>> > Q>>to justify their actions in court. Q>> > Q>

Q>> > Q>As they should. Q>>

Q>> > Agreed, although Australian law doesn't consider "self Q>> > defense" as a valid reason to get a gun license. Q>>

Q>> > If the gun owner is simply defending property, the view is that Q>> > they should summon the police, not take the law into their own Q>> > hands as judge, jury, and executioner. Q>>

Q>> > Remember that Australia hasn't used the death penalty for Q>> > decades. Q>> > Q>>

Q>> > Q>>Which means that they would have to prove that his life was Q>> > Q>>actually in danger, and that there was no chance of retreat. Q>> > Q>

Q>> > Q>Why should anyone retreat, particularly in ones domicile? Q>> > Q>>

Q>>

Q>> > You probably should ask the people who wrote the law. :-) Q>> > Perhaps because Australia has a universal health care system Q>> > for everyone, and they don't want to pay to treat either the Q>> > homeowner or the thief for gunshot wounds. Q>>

Q>> > Consider that the supposed thief might have entered the Q>> > house by mistake without intending to steal anything. Some Q>> > people do leave their doors unlocked or even open. Q>>

Q>> > Or consider that the person actually does take something? Q>> > He still may not be legally responsible. He may be seriously Q>> > retarded and have the mental capacity of a child. Q>>

Q>> > He may have another form of mental illness, perhaps he Q>> > is under the delusion the item is his. Q>>

Q>> > If he is a first offender, he probably won't be imprisoned Q>> > anyway, and if he is, the penalty will be far less than death or Q>> > even injury. Q>>

Q>> > One could just as easily ask why the householder would be Q>> > willing to shoot or kill another human for, say, a t.v. set Q>> > that may not be worth $200, especially since that he Q>> > would probably have home and contents insurance anyway? Q>>

Q>> > Q>>The law definitely doesn't people to take the law into their Q>> > Q>>hands, especially on mere trespassing or theft offenses. Q>> > Q>

Q>> > Q>Take the law into their own hands....humm....so then only the Q>> > State is Q>> > Q>allowed to protect the citizens from criminals. Q>>

Q>> > Essentially. That is what the police are employed for, after Q>> > all. Q>>

Q>> > The US has far more gun deaths than Australia, so it is a bit Q>> > of an open question if it is any safer than Australia. Q>> > Q>>

Q>> > Q>>Australia does still have a death penalty on the books for Q>> > Q>>certain crimes, but it hasn't been used in decades. Q>> > Q>>

Q>> > Q>>Most people here have little or no interest in guns, those who Q>> > do Q>> > Q>>are generally licensed, and most of them don't think the Q>> > Q>>requirements are that unreasonable. Q>> > Q>

Q>> > Q>Not according to the majority of Aussie gun owners that I know. Q>>

Q>> > The ones you know aren't licensed, or if they are, they Q>> > don't like the storage requirements? :-) Q>>

Q>> > Almost all countries have laws that are unpopular with some Q>> > citizens. I don't suppose drunken drivers like being arrested as Q>> > the result of a random breath test. Q>>

Q>> > Most of the law- abiding drivers don't mind, though. They are Q>> > willing to endure a random breath test if it leads to greater Q>> > safety by keeping drunken and unlicensed drivers off the road. Q>>

Q>> > If any law is unpopular enough, then the voters will simply toss Q>> > out the government that brought it in at the next election and Q>> > elect the opposing party if they promise to repeal it. Q>>

Q>> > The current gun laws were passed simply because the majority of Q>> > Australians were shocked by the Port Arthur massacre. Quite Q>> > a few apparently wanted private gun ownership completely banned. Q>>

Q>> > A large percentage of voters live in large cities. Hunting on Q>> > most public land is banned, and farmers and stockmen are going to Q>> > be pretty fussy who they allow on their land. They don't Q>> > like stock or water tanks shot up by careless shooters. Q>>

Q>> > Since 1920 or so it has been very difficult to get a license to Q>> > carry a handgun, and the present laws mostly relate to Q>> > rifles and shotguns. Q>>

Q>> > A license is required to own any firearm, or even a replica Q>> > handgun, for that matter. Self-defense is not considered Q>> > an adequate reason to own any firearm, let alone a handgun. Q>>

Q>> > The penalties for any unlicensed firearm are pretty stiff, let Q>> > alone a handgun. Q>>

Q>> > Cheers,- Hide quoted text - Q>>

Q>> - Show quoted text - Q>

Q>I agree that ownership of a firearm for self defense is a good thing. Q>

Q>I also believe that the owner of that firearm has total responsibility Q>for that firearm and how it is used...no excuses.

Then we might well agree.

IMHO, the difficulty lies in the "availability" of loaded firearms.

If person "A" has loaded firearms in each room, is he or she more likely to die from the actions of an "intruder" than the actions of wife or child?

....Or, for that matter, the "intruder"?

Q>

Q>TMT Q>