Today's ABC. The woman's a moron, but she has the ear of the prime minister.

Gun control body has semi-automatic handguns in sights

The National Coalition for Gun Control says semi-automatic handguns need to be completely removed from the community.

Coalition chairwoman Samantha Lee says the use of a stolen semi-automatic Glock pistol in a gunfight at a Hurstville carpark in Sydney on Sunday shows that legal handguns can easily become illegal guns.

Ms Lee says the ownership of such guns outside the police force should be banned.

"We question why anyone within Australia requires a semi-automatic handgun for civilian use," she said.

"The high increase or number of guns moving into the illegal market actually fuels the number of hand guns into the illegal market.

"So it's like stopping a leaking tap."

"The high increase or number of guns moving into the illegal market actually fuels the number of hand guns into the illegal market.

"So it's like stopping a leaking tap."

It's amazing (and disappointing) that so many people don't seem to realize that the bad guys will get guns one way or another. And that the good guys not having any increases crime.

On the other hand, I'm not sure the politicians don't realize these facts, but they also know a good "hot button" to push when they need an attention getting headline.

Dan

I agree 100% DOK, it amazes me everytime I hear them talking about tougher gun laws. Does anyone really think that the criminal is going through the paperwork to obtain a gun?

On the other hand, I'm not sure the politicians don't realize these facts, but they also know a good "hot button" to push when they need an attention getting headline.

Dan

I often wonder about this. See I partly hold onto the believe that alot of politicians and celebrities do mean well in their own way. Possibly I'm being naive, but truth be told, no one is without sin, its merely a matter of degrees. If you listen to the ideals of a group you can make a judgment call based on the facts you have gathered from your own experiences. What alot of people fail to do is study the facts and reasoning governing those that offer opposing viewpoints. You can easily see where they come to their conclusions based off the data they have. Even the worst groups tend to have very viable reasons for their actions. So when I look at a politician doing this, I tend to consider the possibility that they really believe they are trying to help a situation.

One reason we have governments is because no one person can know everything about any given item. Distributing it amongst a group allows for a greater amount of variables and concerns to be addressed on any given issue. This is why true democracies are a bad idea, it is easy for a majority to agree on a subject and decide a course of action, but it doesn't place all the variables in front of people.

The current climate in the U.S. quite well demonstrates this. Major activist groups get laws passed with little or no opposition (Since opposing would be politically incorrect in this day and age and the party would be ostracized by the press) and a cascade of problems results. No better example of this could be found in the U.S. then in California, where the liberal majority passes everything they think will help equalize every person. And in almost every case they may help a small segment of the population temporarily, but hurt a majority in the short term, and hurt everyone in the long term. Many analysts believe that the economy in CA directly influences the rest of the U.S. and that we are suffering right now because of them.

One other reason that we're hurting, and one other sign of why a true democracy is detrimental is that change is meant to occur slowly. Forcing change breeds resistance, and causes ripples thruout society. I think many groups have more opposition in middle America and the working class then they had 15 years ago, not because people feel more strongly against them, but because they feel that they're rights are constantly being infringed upon.

Sorry, was giving my two cents and it turned into more of a quarter ;)

The thing that I love about gun control advocates is that they are consistent. Their methodology is tried and true.

1) Pick a weapon type

2) Demonize them to the hilt

3) Create a sense of urgency for action

4) Malign the character of all who own these
terrible weapons: "what do honest people
need THOSE for"?

5) Get it banned

6) Move on to the next weapon type


There is no satisfying these people. Semi-auto rifles? No, those are assault weapons. You can't have those. Semi-auto pistols? No, only criminals have a use for those. Next it will probably be magnum revolvers. After all, nobody really needs to hunt with a handgun, do they? While we are at it, we really should make scopes illegal. Those are really only good for snipers, and besides...you don't have any business taking game shots from far enough away to need a scope. Come to think of it, you don't need anything as powerful as a 30-06 or 270 either. Heck, we need to just do away with all centerfire rifle cartridges. Now that leaves us with 22 LR's. Since you can do your target shooting with pellet rifles, you don't really need 22 LRs, so we will ban all those next. You know, we have to do something about these pellet rifles. Some kid is going to shoot his eye out!

It's the same methodology used to get rid of anything 'bad' - not just guns. Also sells a lot of newspapers and TV advertising during the news.

Oh, Richard, my friend, I fear that Australia is headed the way of Not-so-Great-Britain: all the guns in the hands of police and criminals and laws to stop honest citizens from defending themselves, even barehanded! :(
The crass ignorance and dishonesty of politicians will never cease to amaze me... :mad:
PP.

she does sound like an anti-men person. i guess this is why she's still a ms because no man can stand her.

well, u guys need to move to alaska.