'Everyone I hike with carries a gun' !!!

[Hallu]

Hem make drugs and alcohol illegal ? Ever watched the history channel ? lol We're way passed that. Making alcohol illegal increased traffic, gangs and violence, because it's simply impossible to make it disappear. Now we're talking about legalizing everything, even narcotics, that's the only way you can control it. It's the same with poaching. Elephant poaching for ivory is so bad (veritable armies against poorly trained and equipped rangers), all because of the Asian illegal market, that we're actually talking about farming elephants only for ivory...

[wayno]

the history of the human race is a history of consumption of drugs...... you'll never stop it
in the middle ages alcohol was the drink of choice, large portions of the population were semi permanently drunk... its only in relatively recent times where a reasonable no of people have started to frown on being intoxicated....
saying you should make drugs and alcohol illegal is just dreaming, it will never work, the masses will always find a way to access and consume them because that's what they've always wanted to do.... theres a long way to go before society changes its habits to get rid of consumption.... smoking is one thing but don't expect to be able to just legislate away consumption of drugs.

look at dope growing, its a massive underground business and a lot of the people doing it are hell bent on doing it regardless of the legal consequences they are prepared to be violent to continue growing and harvesting their crops and keep others from interfering with that

face it you're never going to be totally safe with everyone on the planet.. whenever you step outside your front door you just have to trust you dont cross paths with someone who wants to do something seriously bad to you.

[maddog]

Motor vehicles are 1,000,000 times more dangerous then firearms in AUSTRALIA.

When you tally up the cost and casualties of drugs (cigarettes included) and alcohol on society ive always been completely baffled at the way some people jump up and down a carry on about firearms, like all the problems in Australia would be solved if we didnt have them. IMO firearm related deaths absolutely pales in insignificance to just about every other cause of death in this country. Legally owned firearms used by their licensed owners im talking about..
Travis.

In 2010, Australian firearms related deaths totalled 236, whereas the total number of deaths from motor vehicles in the same year was 1,352 (about 6 times higher). There are however significantly more motor vehicles than firearms (about 5 times as many), and the general public suffers from far greater exposure to motor vehicles in their everyday life than they do with firearms.

Cheers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mo ... ia_by_year
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia

[Travis22]

Hallu, completely agree with what your saying.

I know we'll never stop drugs, tobacco or alcohol because these companies and organizations have far to much political power not to mention corruption and contribute to much money via taxes etc. that it will never change.

Just like the prohibition failed, banning firearms, restricting types etc. has had and will continue to have no effect on the criminals who choose to use them in crime. Wasnt a policeman earlier this year found to be supplying criminals with handguns in Sydney?

Out of the 236 firearms deaths in 2010, how many where legally owned firearms used by their owners? And if we look at a slightly bigger picture, how many people were injured via a firearm v's injured by a motor vehicle? What likely hood is there of a person being shot v's being involved in a motor vehicle accident and seriously injured or killed. Again it just seems to me that some people put such a great emphasis on one thing when there are far greater things that could do with their attention.

Sorry i didnt make it clear but banning things has been a joke of mine for years now. Because we all know banning things is the answer to everything! The world is such a safer place because back in 2002 my $6000 competition handgun was crushed and replaced by 10 more with a 1mm dia decrease in bore size. Dont even get me started on the joke that was the 1996 buy back either.

What is the deterrent for criminals, in this country you can murder someone and be out free in less then 10years. You can stab and or seriously assault someone and get time served. Instead of beating this dead horse how about we start actually getting tough on crime and criminals!

Travis.

[colinm]

What is the deterrent for criminals, in this country you can murder someone and be out free in less then 10years. You can stab and or seriously assault someone and get time served. Instead of beating this dead horse how about we start actually getting tough on crime and criminals!

I'm sorry someone crushed your beautiful competition firearm, Travis. I doubt anyone was made safer by its loss.

It's worth noting, though, that (because we evolved from apes, and apes are well known for their feisty temperament) "crimes of passion" comprise the majority of murders and assaults. And because of this, the degree of objective criminality of many such crimes, and the heinousness of them, and the probability of re-offending are all usually pretty low, and the degree of remorse is usually pretty high.

Now, since the function of justice is to limit vendetta and to keep the queen's peace and all that, Judges take into account all those factors and more when trying to arrive at a just sentence. I don't think 10 years in high security is nothing - it would put a serious dent in my day.

Given that most murders and violent acts aren't premeditated and for-profit, I find it quite plausible that restricting access to firearms would reduce the incidence of firearm violence. And since most crimes of passion are one-off, getting "tough on crime" would be likely to produce precisely no significant reduction in violent crime. So it seems, to me.

People who want to "get tough on crime" and complain about how permissive judges are appear to me to be very ignorant, and should read some criminal case law, or sit in on a local or district court, to get some idea of just how difficult a job judges have.

EDIT: I said 'not premeditated' for murder, but of course they are by definition. I meant to say 'calculated.' Sorry, just being pedantic.

[jford]

Made the mistake of thinking LA central would be like sydneys cbd at night as me and the family were there 2 years ago..let me say screw guns for bears, carrying a gun through LA should be compulsory! Scary city after dark

Perhaps you need to carry a bear through central LA. Maybe that would be safer.

[Travis22]

Colinm,

I take my hat off to you. Loved your reply and honestly thats the first reply of such that ive ever read in a good 15years of me reading anti firearm type stuff on forums.

Id gladly enjoy sitting down and having an alcoholic drink with you someday around the campfire (before alcohol is banned) haha.

I dont really have any sort of come back but to continue the conversation i will continue with my banning alcohol proposal. If as you said most murders are not premeditated or for profit, and being in possession of a firearm means that you will likely use it to commit this murder under the crimes of passion banner then id like to put it out there that i believe alcohol or other drugs would likely be involved somehow and more then likely it would be the removal of that substance from the equation that would change the outcome for the better, not the removal of the firearm . Be it the wife cheated on you while she was drunk, you cheated on her while drunk, when you get drunk you become very possessive or very insecure etc. etc. etc. IMO alcohol is still one of the greatest evils out there. I guess like a firearm tho, you have to drink it to be evil, sitting there in a bottle is harmless. Still, we better ban it!

My tough on crime thought, was more so aimed at the criminals using illegal firearms or other weapons. I have no idea but id have thought the % of people murdered with a firearm would be mostly related to criminal activities v's the crimes of passion type? Either way what harm would it be do make it the law that if you use a firearm or other deadly weapon on someone (successfully or unsuccessfully) you get automatically 25+ years. Surely, i would like to think this would be quite a deterrent, but i dont know, id say i try to do the right thing always, tho people who couldnt give a stuff about right or wrong, getting 2 years or 25years prison perhaps they wouldn't give a stuff either way.

Travis.

[Hallu]

Threatening criminals with automatic 25+ years sentences accomplishes nothing. It's the same as the death penalty. It only accomplishes expensive and decades long trials, not to mention the occasional innocent executed by mistake... The classic safe countries have actually quite mellow justice, places such as Scandinavia, Australia/NZ, Canada. The safest countries are usually the ones where density of population is low AND there are no major tensions between communities (racial communities, or religious communities).

Rich dense countries such as Monaco, Switzerland or Lichtenstein can also achieve such a level of safety because of a control-freak government and strict laws, applicable because of their small size (otherwise China and Indonesia would be the safest places in the world) . There is no miracle recipe, but enforcing gun control would be a start for the US, despite what they think. The only exception I know is Japan, a densely populated safe country, but they're saved by their isolation, having to deal with almost no tension between communities apart from the far North of the country, and Okinawa.

[wayno]

NZ!? mellow justice!? we have one of the highest imprisonment rates in the world.... behind er, the states... we can't build prisons fast enough to hold the new inmates... if you're on remand you can sit there for over half a year waiting for a trial....

[wayno]

as for Japan, if their police gget hold of you, then you confess or their laws just let them hold you almost indefinitely without even charging you with anything, and they will make your life hell.. japanese people know better than to mess with the police....
a nz rugby player recently was held by their police, they just held him for weeks because they could.... they didnt need any reason or approval from a judge... there is massive societal pressure in japan to conform or else. apologising is part of the culture, whether you mean it or not you must be humble.... the pressure is reflected by one of the highest suicide rates in the world....
what makes societies "safe" can be quite complex and can't necessarily be summed up in a paragraph....
my girlfriend is Japanese, there is a lot about Japan she doesnt like and she won't go back to live there, regardless of how safe it is....

[Hallu]

Well even though you have a high incarceration rate, it's not second to the US : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... ation_rate and I don't think it's possible to draw conclusions from this rate, as China is less than the UK in that chart for example. Countries I had in mind were China, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Burma, or Singapore, where you can't lift a finger without being thrown into jail. Some are authoritarian, some aren't, maybe I badly expressed myself with "mellow justice", but does the NZ justice give life sentences to most of its murderers, or is it mellow like in Australia ? Because in the Western world, it's still pretty common to let somebody rot in jail, awaiting for his trial, and this common practice is not necessarily connected to longer sentences in case of murder.

[maddog]

id like to put it out there that i believe alcohol or other drugs would likely be involved somehow and more then likely it would be the removal of that substance from the equation that would change the outcome for the better, not the removal of the firearm .. IMO alcohol is still one of the greatest evils out there.

Alcohol has been implicated in only 5% of firearm related homicides. Money / Drugs with 20%.

I have no idea but id have thought the % of people murdered with a firearm would be mostly related to criminal activities v's the crimes of passion type?

About 69 % of firearm homicides involved someone known to the perpetrator: a partner (21%), a family member (13%), or a friend or acquaintance (35%). The most common motive is domestic argument (36%).

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/curr ... .html#tab2

Cheers

[Travis22]

Good link maddog.

Re: the most common motive being domestic argument, i would propose that basically all other options there relate to criminal activity and thus the remaining 64% shows the difference. The majority of the people using a firearm in the statistics there are criminals (lol, well you know what i mean given everyone in the stats there are criminals but i mean good people with no record committing a one off crime of passion v's 'bad guys').

Hmmm, my head hurts reading all of that, but also it seems to me that handguns (only 2% legally owned and registered) accounted for a whole bunch of the stats there funny that given the study is focused on criminal use of handguns

Travis.

[Hallu]

Nope because revenge is 15%, alcohol related 5%. Offender has criminal history is 58%, but that could mean he beats his wife, committed tax fraud, etc... not necessarily a professional criminal. Anyway, it's Australian stats, not US.

[Travis22]

Thats it Hallu. Basically id take the stats with a grain of salt. They could mean anything depending on how the person looking at then interprets them. Not to mention there would be a million other variables which have been compressed into 5 or 6 options.

Bottom line, im sticking to my guns (pun intended) that the odds of one getting shot, in a NSW NP now that hunting has been allowed under specific circumstances are so small its ridiculous.

The Aussie stats Maddog has provided fit in with what we have been discussing since i kind of accidentally derailed this thread into talking about Australian firearm use, not American. I wouldnt be telling any Americans what they can and cannot do with their guns, they have too many

[maddog]

Travis22,

The AIC statistics provide little support your proposition that 'keep drugs and alcohol away 99% of your problems [with firearms] would be gone', nor that 'motor vehicles are 1,000,000 times more dangerous than firearms in AUSTRALIA'.

In regards to recreational hunting in NSW National Parks, there already exists a thread.

Cheers

[Travis22]

The AIC statistics show nothing more then the number of deaths involving firearms, just like the statistics for motor vehicles show deaths involving motor vehicles - which as you said is itself "about 6 times higher". Yet as you quoted, i said "more dangerous" meaning exactly that not specifically deadly. If you were to look at the injuries suffered by victims of motor vehicle accidents........ tally that all up and then look at the difference, i think my 1,000,000 times figure (which i clearly pulled out of the air) wouldnt be far off.

IMO the most dangerous weapon any one of us owns and controls is a motor vehicle and chances are that a fair percentage of us at one time or another will be involved in an accident where someone is injured in our lifetimes. Yet drivers licenses are still almost handed out on the back of cereal packets.

In regards to hunting in NSW Parks, im very aware of 'that' thread and i wouldn't go near it with a 10ft pole. My involvement in this thread started in reply to another fellows comment IN THIS THREAD about hunting in NSW parks.

Travis.

[David M]

Unlike Australia, in North America they have some +seriously+ dangerous animals that WILL kill you and WILL eat you. It would be utter insanity to go into certain areas without being appropriately armed. In real life bears aren't exactly like "Ben" of Grizzly Adams fame. And Polar Bears are always hungry and don't mind if their food happens to be wrapped up in clothes.

[Clusterpod]

As long as people continue to insist on traveling in places where they need to kill the wildlife to avoid being killed, the rest of us won't have long to wait till those places just don't exist anymore.

[David M]

As long as people continue to insist on traveling in places where they need to kill the wildlife to avoid being killed, the rest of us won't have long to wait till those places just don't exist anymore.

I disagree. Having to kill an animal to preserve one's life is so infrequent that it is unlikely to impact on species conservation. In fact, in the USA and Canada, among dangerous animals, bears and especially wolves are doing particularly well. It would be foolish not to visit and appreciate areas inhabited by these animals just because people might have to, on rare occasions, kill one to preserve human life.

It is also true that Australia has more deadly animals than nearly anywhere else but these animals are mainly venomous in nature, not carnivorous and you have a good chance of surviving an attack if you can get to medical help in time. No amount of medical help is going to help you if you get eaten by a big carnivore.

[Hallu]

I have a better idea : if you're scared, then meet some locals, properly armed and trained (if you can't fathom the idea that pepper spray actually works better) make friends of them, and go hike with them. What's ridiculous is going armed when you don't hunt or shoot for sport. Most attacks by bears happen when you surprise the bear. If you scared poo..., how are you gonna take out your gun, remove the safety, aim and shoot ? A handgun isn't gonna stop a charging bear anyway, and if you surprised him, chances are he's already pretty close to you anyway... You shoot him in the belly, he's gonna be furious and kill you. Don't forget that a bear has a very thick layer of fat and muscle, so unless you shoot him in the head, or with huge caliber/piercing round, it's pretty useless. You make him blind, with a spray, you can escape easily.

I think this misconception of the spray's efficiency is also because of the name, pepper spray. People think it's the same one women keep in their purse to deter sexual predators, that you have to be less than 2 meters from the aggressor and really aim for the eyes. A bear spray has much more pressure, it's designed to project a huge cloud of smoke with a range of 10 m. Another thing is important : if everybody carries this spray, bears will learn in time that approaching a human = blinding fog of nasty smoke in the eyes. If you shoot the bear and kill it, nothing is achieved, just a dead bear. So no, I would never carry a gun when in bear country, I'd feel much safer with a spray and an electric fence for the night.

Now all of this is valid for all bears except polar bears. As Wayno said, those won't naturally avoid you but attack you instead, since it's much harder for them to find food (we also made it much harder for them with global warming too). In polar bear country, no question about it, you need a gun. But people don't usually go casually bushwalking in those regions anyway.

[colinm]

[wayno]

unless you're a good shot it takes a pretty well aimed shot to stop a grizzly in one go.
early settlers had a lot of trouble killing them with muskets which fired a half inch diameter lead shot that would do a lot of damage. if you're not practiced and shooting at moving targets and knowing where to shoot to kill it, what makes you so sure a firearm is the answer for you>? handguns are inaccurate and have minimal effect at anything much over a couple of dozen metres
Pepper spray is a far better bet, and throwing objects and yelling can have a surprisingly good effect.

[Occam]

Brilliant.

[David M]

I know this sign is meant to be humorous but I am moderately surprised that the expletive "sh*t" was used on what may be a Government or other official sign.

And mixing humour into such a serious topic might give the opposite of the intended message.

[wayno]

i don't think its official, it says "fort steele campground" at the bottom

[colinm]

I just thought it was funny. I have no idea what the most effective brown bear protection tactic would be. I would opt for the tactic of being in a different county from the bear in question.

BTW, I would recommend everyone see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly_Man not so much because it deals with brown bears, but because it deals with how terribly humans assess risk.

[wayno]