Lisa Milat running for ACT Senate seat

Mr Evil 24 October 2007 48

Did anyone else see this piece of news on the idiot box last night?

Lisa Milat (sister-in-law of Ivan) is running on the Liberty and Democracy Party ticket as a candidate for an ACT Senate seat – and surprise, surprise she favours loosening gun control laws!

Lisa’s website


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
48 Responses to Lisa Milat running for ACT Senate seat
Filter
Order
sepi sepi 1:00 pm 31 Oct 07

In the US every year a number of people are shot and killed by dogs, toddlers and cars (gun in the backseat). Guns are dangerous, in the hands of maniacs, or even just on their own.

Thumper Thumper 12:13 pm 31 Oct 07

If you stare into mirror and say ‘scary mary’ three times will someone leap out and gouge your eyes out?

Or is that an urban legend…

scarymary scarymary 12:04 pm 31 Oct 07

Kramer,

I noticed on the page you suggested we visit that all these people got hauled in and turned into criminals for what were ‘technicalities’. These were not people that threatened anyone with a gun or let it off in a public place or in a dangerous way. These were people targeted by a selective predudicial campaign intended to score political points for some pollie sucking up to the anti-gun do-gooders, at others expense.
In the US more people are killed with “bare-hands” than are killed with guns or knives. So we should outlaw hands – everyone with hands should be locked up.
Gun Control is a knee-jerk reaction by pollies that want to get votes by being seen to do something whilst trampling on the rights of a minority.
Almost every house in switzerland has a gun, issued to people when the do national service, but you don’t see the murder rate in switzerland being quoted by the gun-control lobby.

Stop trying to tell me what I can and can’t do. Stop making laws that make inocent people criminals.

Kramer Kramer 1:12 pm 27 Oct 07

I have two problems with relaxing gun laws:
The first is more people owning (and carrying) guns leads to an arms race within the community. Good people occaisionally turn bad – if they own a gun then the consequences are much higher.

The second is that gun owners do not always secure their guns. Many legally owned guns are stolen from legitimate gun owners – these end up in the hands of criminals.

Ordinary citizens do not need to own guns. Only 5.2% of Australians own and use guns (I think that’s too high), so why doesn’t the govt just tighten the laws further – that’s only 5.2% of the population they will piss off.

BTW – have a look at this…
http://www.guncontrol.org.au/index.php?article=90

Deadmandrinking Deadmandrinking 3:31 pm 25 Oct 07

Drugs and guns are different things, Ralph. Drugs don’t need to be made in factories. They can be made in backyards, provided you have an idea of how to do it.
Also, in the US, a shitload of gun deaths come from accidents within the home, i.e. people keeping them in the drawer, where the kid can reach, people trying to shoot at intruders but hitting a member of the family or letting Dick Cheney have a gun.
And the ‘defending yourself from the government’ line, although I’m sure Mr. Evil used it jokingly, is stupid beyond belief. Does anyone really think a bunch of rifles and hand-guns is going to hold off a fully equipped military?
The black market will always exist for guns – but at least it’s a little more difficult for them to fall into the wrong hands.

Gungahlin Al Gungahlin Al 2:38 pm 25 Oct 07

Not making any comment about the sister, but I ran into Ivan Milat’s brother a while back – freaky.
He came to a community workshop about planning sports facilities. He got up and said we needed to set aside bushland for groups to conduct militia-style training. And he wasn’t joking.
Right…far far far right…

dalryk dalryk 2:02 pm 25 Oct 07

I’m not a fan of the LDP’s ideas on guns. Nor their ideas about voluntary voting. However neither of those things matter because they’re not going to be in any position to affect those laws in the forseeable future.

What they will be able to do however, is make a stand for libertarianism generally, and put the other parties on notice that there are people out there who think it’s ideals are valuable and worth supporting. And maybe that will go some way towards reversing the nanny-state trend that is becoming more and more prevalent in today’s society.

Lord Mælinar Lord Mælinar 8:11 am 25 Oct 07

There’s a big call on PhD Economics to man cash registers at JB HiFi.

Don’t knock the Silent Bobs.

OpenYourMind2 OpenYourMind2 7:27 am 25 Oct 07

I think an appeal to authority in a blog discussion based on having a PhD is an act of poor judgement. Even if Ralph really does have a PhD in Economics, he’s degrading and trivialising it by using it to try to trump everyone else in this type of discourse.

To me, it’s one step short of a blog/net discussion where people start to physically threaten each other then one of them claims to be a professional boxer or whatever. Just makes the anonymous claimant look silly.

Ingeegoodbee Ingeegoodbee 6:50 am 25 Oct 07

For someone who claims to understand economics you sure come across as a bit of a dill Ralph. I guess it must be all those assumptions you need to make to make your arguments work.

Under your scenario supply of guns is restricted so demand rises – no brainer. Now lets look at why supply decreased … oh that’s right it was decreased by regulatory means so when demand increases, costs will rise but you still have decreased supply.

I guess in your rush to defend yourself you only trotted out the bog standard stuff you learned in Eco101 rather than all the good stuff you supposedly picked up racking up your PhD!

chester chester 1:54 am 25 Oct 07

Point 1
Thumper the more of your posts I read, the smarter I think you are. But don’t let it go to your head, OK?

Point 2
The American relationship with guns (and I’m not defending their POV – I don’t know how to load or fire a gun and they scare the crap out of me) is very different from our own. Historically. The whole “right to bear arms” thing makes them look at the issue from a very different perspective to us.

Point 3
“Anybody who actually knows the laws of demand and supply, and that’s not you, knows that as you restrict the supply of something, the price goes up – making the supply of such goods even more luctrative.”
Dear god, I never thought I’d agree with Ralph on anything. But I am. Please don’t let it happen again.

Point 4
She has already been judged (such as it is) for anything she has done and the rest of us have to just suck on it. Her surname is beside the point. If she can use it to garner votes (unlikely) she should be allowed to milk it for what it’s worth just like any other aspiring politician.

And apparently this election is all about our “aspirations” whatever the f*ck that means.

Retep Retep 1:42 am 25 Oct 07

I know Lisa, and have known her for a number of years. Although she is a member of the SSAA (target shooting), it is not the reason for her standing. Her main concern, the reason for why she has made the personal effort, is based on the over-regulation of government on the general public. This is a wide-spread ‘malaise’ that has affected all institutions, current policies, the rights of the individual and so on. The LDP is libertarian, and although seen by some quarters as extreme, does shine some light on an over-regulated government and the loss of individual rights.
Let’s not demean the concept of libertarianism as a political philosophy.
If you think of what true individual liberty is, then you’ve got some sense of what the LDP is about.

p1 p1 11:20 pm 24 Oct 07

Seems a bit loopy to me..

[thread drift]

It seems to me, from interaction with many owners of guns of varying types, that gun laws are pretty good right now. People that need, or indeed want them seem to have no trouble getting them (other then prehaps increased costs involved in meeting all the requirements for storage etc), and people who might otherwise just have one cause its “cool” are put off by the “strict” laws. While I think that laws can always be tweeked, I definatly would Not advocate relaxing them.

….if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will accidentally shoot their kids….

[/thread drift]

Mike Crowther Mike Crowther 10:46 pm 24 Oct 07

There was no evidence that Milat’s sister was directly involved in any of his crimes. I believe that she was however fined for retrieving and disposing of one of his hidden handguns at his direction after he had been arrested for the murders. She probably should have been gaoled, but that’s Magistrates for you.

Sammy Sammy 10:08 pm 24 Oct 07

The ACA reporter asked her opinion on euthanasia

The Milat’s only know how to euthanase backpackers.

sepi sepi 9:15 pm 24 Oct 07

Guns are very different to drugs. Drugs can be manufactured – guns are quite hard to make. Drugs can be smuggled inside shoes (or people), guns need to go in containers or boats.

Rarity does not breed traffic in items either. Black opals are rare and valuable – this has not increased their numbers on our streets.

And if there are less guns around, making them more expensive on the black market, it will be harder for real nutters to get hold of them.

Tightening gun controls is the one good thing John Howard has done.

OpenYourMind2 OpenYourMind2 7:27 pm 24 Oct 07

Oh, and I absolutely detest their policy on smoking. If this party had its way, not only would bar/restaurant owners have the right to allow smoking, but so too would workplace owners.

I thought we had gotten past the bad old days of the majority suffering for the actions of the few. The idea that someone can simply change job if their fellow employees are smoking is such crap. I’m old enough to have worked in a smoky environment back when I was younger and more desperate for work. It was hell, and I’d never wish that on anybody.

I’m absolutely loving being able to go to clubs and pubs and not be the victim of other’s disgusting habits. The businesses all seem to be doing just fine with these changes too.

Ralph Ralph 7:18 pm 24 Oct 07

I should add that cracking on illicit drugs has really done wonders to restrict their supply, hasn’t it ingee?

Ralph Ralph 7:14 pm 24 Oct 07

The more we restrict the legitimate pool of guns the more we close down the black market … you’d imagine that even someone with a PhD in economics would understand that.

Now you’re just making an idiot of yourself. Anybody who actually knows the laws of demand and supply, and that’s not you, knows that as you restrict the supply of something, the price goes up – making the supply of such goods even more luctrative.

You should also know, that guns laws are actually pretty liberal in a lot of countries, so where do you think the black marketeers get them from?

Stop making an arse of yourself.

OpenYourMind2 OpenYourMind2 7:13 pm 24 Oct 07

I really like the relatively low level of gun ownership and gun worship in this country. The thought that the next crazy person out there is fairly unlikely to be packing a gun is one of the positive things about Australia.

I’m also ok with our tax rates. I’d much rather they were boosted a little and we worked harder on health, education (especially science), water conservation and renewable energy. More ependiture on these things would make our country even better still.

That said, some of LDP’s policy ideas make sense to me.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site