Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

Bill O’Reilly uses the Member for Fraser’s research to beat up the gun nuts

By johnboy - 19 December 2012 44

I don’t think anyone saw this coming.

On the rabidly right wing Fox News the strongly pro-gun Bill O’Reilly today was using research by Canberra’s own Member for Fraser Dr Andrew Leigh to bludgeon home the message that assault rifles in private hands is not in the public interest. (and it only took a huge pile of dead six year old children to get minds actually thinking)

If you’ve wondered why so much big money supports the otherwise nutty notion of private gun rights in the US Mark Ames has published as good a theory as any on NSFWcorp.com (available for the next 18 hours).

screenshot

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
44 Responses to
Bill O’Reilly uses the Member for Fraser’s research to beat up the gun nuts
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
IrishPete 9:26 am 31 Dec 12

460cixy said :

Because responsible folk enjoy target shooting and have done so for years with out issue but of course it only takes one bad apple to get the antis all in a tizz over it.

On a side note tho I see the news has stopped getting mileage out of the u.s tragedy and I can see exactly nothing being changed in there laws

There have been a few more than “one bad apple” – I cited two fairly recent, tragic and highly publicised incidents.

If the system doesn’t prevent a psychotic person or anyone else taking a handgun home, then the system is broken and needs to be fixed.

IP

IrishPete 9:22 am 31 Dec 12

LSWCHP said :

Regarding the Glock being a target pistol, it depends on the type of match you shoot. I used to own a Glock, it was a nice piece of machinery and I shot a lot of targets with it. I eventually sold it because I didn’t like the feel of the trigger, and purchased a different gun, which I shot in a match yesterday.

The idiot who got shot in Sydney was illegally carrying his firearm which is a profoundly stupid thing to do. If you point a gun at someone, particularly the cops, they may well point their guns back at you and shoot you. I don’t have much sympathy for him.

As for target shooting, that’s the primary reason I own firearms, and I would certainly miss it if I could no longer participate.

I think I was reasonably clear that target shooting was not my “target”, rather target shooting with pistols which have no purpose outside the firing range. Target shooting with a rifle is a skill which is transferrable to the community – shooting feral animals being the obvious one. There are legal and reasonable reasons for having a rifle or shotgun in the community – none that I can think of for a pistol, be it semi-automatic or revolver.

Presumably you do have some sympathy for the police who had to shoot Mr Elkass, for the people who witnessed the shooting, and for his family, and for all the other people directly and indirectly affected. All because you a few people want to get their kicks from shooting targets with a pistol. There are lots of things I might enjoy doing but I don’t because they are illegal because society has decided they be so.

In fact, it would probably be fun to play with RPGs – can we legalise that for me to do on a firing range if I promise never to take it home to deal with a dispute with my neighbours?

IP

LSWCHP 9:38 pm 30 Dec 12

IrishPete said :

Reviving an oldish thread here, because I’m surprised that no-one raised the issue of Mr Elkass http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/fatal-shooting-police-may-not-have-identified-themselves-inquest-20121203-2aq8k.html who had a legally owned, but illegally in his possession, Glock. I think that’s a semi-automatic pistol. I can’t see much reason for a private citizen to have access to one of those – it’s hardly a target pistol is it?

It would be better to have universal controls, rather than trying to target them on specific people. Handguns do seem to be the main problem, presumably because of ease of concealment. Apart from the sport of target shooting, which most of us wouldn’t miss if it disappeared, what possible reason can a memebr of the public have for legally possessing a handgun?

IP

Regarding the Glock being a target pistol, it depends on the type of match you shoot. I used to own a Glock, it was a nice piece of machinery and I shot a lot of targets with it. I eventually sold it because I didn’t like the feel of the trigger, and purchased a different gun, which I shot in a match yesterday.

The idiot who got shot in Sydney was illegally carrying his firearm which is a profoundly stupid thing to do. If you point a gun at someone, particularly the cops, they may well point their guns back at you and shoot you. I don’t have much sympathy for him.

As for target shooting, that’s the primary reason I own firearms, and I would certainly miss it if I could no longer participate.

460cixy 8:40 pm 30 Dec 12

IrishPete said :

Reviving an oldish thread here, because I’m surprised that no-one raised the issue of Mr Elkass http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/fatal-shooting-police-may-not-have-identified-themselves-inquest-20121203-2aq8k.html who had a legally owned, but illegally in his possession, Glock. I think that’s a semi-automatic pistol. I can’t see much reason for a private citizen to have access to one of those – it’s hardly a target pistol is it?

Also the older case of Ms Fernando http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/gun-death-triggers-battle-to-close-pistol-club-and-limit-access-to-weapons-20110121-19zzw.html who also illegally took a gun home from a club and killed her father with it. I can’t find much info on the type of pistol used.

People will argue that better criminal record checks and mental health checks would prevent these occurrences, but I beg to differ. A person can develop a mental illness at any time, especially in young adulthood. And I’m not sure that gun clubs should be given access to people’s health records. And as health records are state-based, if you move interstate you won’t be known to the system.

It would be better to have universal controls, rather than trying to target them on specific people. Handguns do seem to be the main problem, presumably because of ease of concealment. Apart from the sport of target shooting, which most of us wouldn’t miss if it disappeared, what possible reason can a memebr of the public have for legally possessing a handgun?

IP

Because responsible folk enjoy target shooting and have done so for years with out issue but of course it only takes one bad apple to get the antis all in a tizz over it. On a side note tho I see the news has stopped getting mileage out of the u.s tragedy and I can see exactly nothing being changed in there laws

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site