The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-18/a ... lm/5974684

We could say the same of the UK.

Hate to say it but he seems to talk sense

"In the wake of the Port Arthur massacre John Howard did the right thing," Greens acting leader Adam Bandt said.

"He said, 'this is a tragedy and shows what happens when someone who is unstable gets access to a gun'.

And when people who are perfetly stable and in danger cannot!

Of course to put the Greens comment in perspective, you only need to understand one thing: The Greens are a complete pack of useless bloody idiots. Unstable? In the dictionary beside 'unstable', they ought to have photos of the Greens. If it wasn't for our stupid MMP voting system here the Greens wouldn't get within miles of parliament, as there isn't a single one of them who could get elected dog-catcher.

Long since held a similar view.

When the Lee Rigby enquiry said his death was unavoidable I thought not if CCW was available to Citizens in the UK!

However an armed population are Citizens a disarmed population are Subjects. As a Subject I just went back to watching I'm a Celebrity in the knowledge that the state will look after me and the Police are no more than 20 minutes away.

Countryman, did you not see the follow up report that said it WAS avoidable - IF WE HAD MORE SNOOPING POWERS (that will be rushed through)! Considering Rigby's murder was preventable as the killers were KNOWN to the authorities and being played, CCW for those who choose and have suitable training is the answer. Australia has just proven it.

Thing that annoyed me more about the deaths in Sydney was this. If Channel 7 could get that shot before anybody had to die then why couldn't a Police Marksman?

Looking at some of the comments associated with the article, I think it'll take a few more of these outrages in Oz before public opinion is swayed in favour of the benefits of CCW (if ever). It's their loss in the meantime unfortunately.

Mezzer

Countryman wrote:Thing that annoyed me more about the deaths in Sydney was this.

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1419155694.804124.jpg

If Channel 7 could get that shot before anybody had to die then why couldn't a Police Marksman?

When was that shot taken - early or later in the siege?
What was it taken with - camera on the seen or by some other method or was even provided by the Police?
IIRC, all the major networks had offices within walking distance, so they could have could got there before the Police had cordoned off the area. Also, just because it looks good on TV doesn't mean it's a good shot on the ground - at that time the Police may not have confirmed the the situation as to how many hostage takers, hostages, explosive threat and so on. So I don't see any point in being annoyed about it, we should be grateful that only two hostages died and it didn't turn out like Cairns.

Mezzer wrote:Looking at some of the comments associated with the article, I think it'll take a few more of these outrages in Oz before public opinion is swayed in favour of the benefits of CCW (if ever). It's their loss in the meantime unfortunately.

Mezzer

Australia and firearms died a long time ago, Port Arthur was the final nail in the coffin for the average urban Australian, so the comments aren't surprising. Whether or not CCW could have changed anything is a moot point as it is not an option in Australia and hasn't ever been IIRC. The only State that allows pepper spray or similar for self defence is WA, so that wasn't even on the cards in Sydney.
Even though I'm in favour of CCW, I wouldn't categorise it as "their loss" but as their decision, but one I hope Australia doesn't regret...

What does IIRC mean?????