Who shoots a store? Mysterious bullet holes in Gungahlin

Barcham 6 August 2013 66

ACT Policing’s Criminal Investigations is investigating bullet holes into a business in Gungahlin overnight (August 6).

About 7.50am this morning, the owner arrived at the business and saw what appeared to be bullet holes in the window of his shop.

Members from Gungahlin Police Station attended and assessed the damage, confirming four bullet holes in to a window and window frame of the Tatts On Tatts Off tattoo shop on Anthony Rolfe Avenue.

AFP Forensic Services were called to the shop and are currently processing the scene.

Detectives from Criminal Investigations are conducting enquiries into the incident.

Anyone who may have seen or heard anything suspicious overnight on Anthony Rolfe Avenue is urged to contact Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000 or via act.crimestoppers.com.au. Information can be provided anonymously.

[Courtesy of ACT Policing]


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
66 Responses to Who shoots a store? Mysterious bullet holes in Gungahlin
Filter
Order
IrishPete IrishPete 10:12 am 09 Aug 13

Diggety said :

Lads/Gents

Believe it or not: legal gun owners are some of the most responsible, legally aware and conscious operators within their environmental circumstances – including sportsmen. They know best on this subject.

The problem is illegal use of firearms. The proliferation, use, or trade will never be overcome by blaming legal shooters – the very people fighting against illegal use of firearms.

That has been my observation too. Generally gun handling and gun security are taken very seriously (though I have met the odd exception).

But posters to online forums seem to want to change the laws back to pre-Port Arthur, or even worse something USA-style. So while they may be complying with the existing laws, they are pushing to have them changed, against the wishes of the vast majority of Australians who prefer things as they are, or even more restricted.

And reading that a licensed shooter has half a dozen handguns at home make me wonder “why?”. Shotties and rifles have a function – handguns not, just a sport of target shooting. There are many sports and recreational activities over the decades and centuries that have become illegal because the downsides are considered worse than the upsides.

Anything that you keep in your house, no matter the level of security, can be stolen. But if it doesn’t exist, it can’t be stolen. So whether or not stolen handguns make up a substantial proportion of those circulating illegally, they make up some of them, and they are an easy fix. We don’t have to compete in every international sport – we probably don’t have a bobsled team.

Research I read somewhere said 3% of stolen firearms (and it may even have been handguns specifically) are later linked to crime, like the one that started this thread – but that has to be an underestimate, because we need to know the follow-up period (a month? a year? 10 years? it needs to be for the useful life of the gun, which is decades, maybe even centuries if well-maintained), and the methodology for linking them (which I doubt would be finding all the links).

I could and want to get a gun licence, but I am extremely concerned about security – I cant keep them on my bush block where I would use them, because a gun safe would have no effect. There is no-one nearby, and you’d have as long as you want to force the safe or remove it. Not a lot different in my home with timber floors – bolting a gun safe to a timber floor wouldn’t present a significant challenge to a determined burglar. And a gun safe screams “I have guns inside”. perhaps the law should be less specific about what they are stored in, and allow some sensible discretion – maybe I should be able to keep them in a dog kennel with resident large dog!

IP

Diggety Diggety 12:54 am 09 Aug 13

Lads/Gents

Believe it or not: legal gun owners are some of the most responsible, legally aware and conscious operators within their environmental circumstances – including sportsmen. They know best on this subject.

The problem is illegal use of firearms. The proliferation, use, or trade will never be overcome by blaming legal shooters – the very people fighting against illegal use of firearms.

IrishPete IrishPete 12:39 am 09 Aug 13

LSWCHP said :

IrishPete said :

Given that handguns are supposedly banned in Australia, I see no reason for anyone to be keeping them at home, unless as personal protection in which case you would expect their home to be secure, and the handgun to be carried with them when they are away from home. Target shooters can keep them at a secure gun club.

IP

This is more than a little off topic, but what the hey…

IP, generally you seem to have your eye on the ball, but everything in that para is wrong. Handguns are banned in England but not here.

As Grimm has stated, handgun ownership in Australia is quite legal. There are at least 4 pistol clubs in Canberra that I know of, and like him I also own…ermm…quite a lot of handguns. I couldn’t carry them with me when I left the home because I would be stumbling under the weight.

They may not be used for personal protection, they are for target shooting activities only.

Carrying a pistol outside the range when away from home is about the most serious crime the owner can commit, and will land him or her in a world of hurt when the plods find out.

Keeping all the members guns at the club would be absolutely the worst thing to do, presenting a giant unguarded collection of concealable firearms to the unrighteous in an isolated location.

The lawful and responsible use of pistols for sporting purposes by serious, disciplined and safety conscious members of the public should be of no concern to anybody.

Arsehats shooting holes in shops is another matter entirely. IFor their own safety, I hope the plods find out who did it before the shopowner and his mates catch them

Anyone who reads my posts should know by now that every word is carefully chosen. So the use of the word “supposedly” is not random. But, I will now expand – by “supposedly” I mean that although your average member of the public thinks they are banned, because John Howard said so, the number of loopholes is truly astounding. If I invented a “sport” involving RPGs. would I be allowed to possess them I think not, but that’s the situation with handguns. I I said I was a RPG collector? Nope. But apparently it’s OK for handguns.

Yes you and I are not allowed to own them for “personal protection”: from burglars and bogeymen, but if you believe they are not permitted for personal protection then I have a lovely expensive bridge to sell you. Do you think senior ASIO staff don’t have guns at home? Or have to have them locked in a safe? Someone will say “that’s professional use” and I will say “bollocks” – if it’s at home it’s for personal protection.

The statement that you’ll get in trouble if you have them anywhere but at a range is daft – you keep them at home, and you transport them from home to range and back again. So as well as being at a range, they are at home, and they are in your vehicle.

They are kept at clubs in some places – how do I know this, because in Sydney a gun club stuffed up and contributed to the killing of a man. http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/gun-club-fails-to-regain-licence-after-man-killed-20120715-224ap.html

Off topic? No, because some knob decided that the gun used in the tattoo shop shooting couldn’t possibly have been stolen, and must have been illegally imported, in the absence of any evidence, and just so he/she/it could make a “poor me, victimised gun nut” comment.

IP

LSWCHP LSWCHP 9:54 pm 08 Aug 13

IrishPete said :

Given that handguns are supposedly banned in Australia, I see no reason for anyone to be keeping them at home, unless as personal protection in which case you would expect their home to be secure, and the handgun to be carried with them when they are away from home. Target shooters can keep them at a secure gun club.

IP

This is more than a little off topic, but what the hey…

IP, generally you seem to have your eye on the ball, but everything in that para is wrong. Handguns are banned in England but not here.

As Grimm has stated, handgun ownership in Australia is quite legal. There are at least 4 pistol clubs in Canberra that I know of, and like him I also own…ermm…quite a lot of handguns. I couldn’t carry them with me when I left the home because I would be stumbling under the weight.

They may not be used for personal protection, they are for target shooting activities only.

Carrying a pistol outside the range when away from home is about the most serious crime the owner can commit, and will land him or her in a world of hurt when the plods find out.

Keeping all the members guns at the club would be absolutely the worst thing to do, presenting a giant unguarded collection of concealable firearms to the unrighteous in an isolated location.

The lawful and responsible use of pistols for sporting purposes by serious, disciplined and safety conscious members of the public should be of no concern to anybody.

Arsehats shooting holes in shops is another matter entirely. IFor their own safety, I hope the plods find out who did it before the shopowner and his mates catch them

poetix poetix 8:38 pm 08 Aug 13

CraigT said :

rosscoact said :

CraigT said :

Mysterious?

Tattoo parlour, bullet holes.

Sounds like the natural order of things, to me. Where you have tattoos, you have scum.

I realise that you are trolling but honestly, saying things like this makes you sound like a knucklehead

How many Nobel prize winners have had tattoos?

Tattoos are the vulgar mark of the least educated and most criminal elements in society. Bouncers, bikies, drug dealers and non-commissioned ranks who lack respect for their own bodies.

A well-designed tattoo is a wonderful thing, and there is a lovely dialectic set up between the living body and the art inked into it. Some tattoos are horrible, but that’s the same with any other art form.

As to your question about Nobel prize winners, they are usually not asked to show their tatts to the Swedish king when picking up the prize, I would imagine. But Brian Schmidt may be able to enlighten us.

Pork Hunt Pork Hunt 8:33 pm 08 Aug 13

So are all these dogs getting tatts on or tatts off? The discussion has degenerated to a large extent from the OP ffs…

rosscoact rosscoact 7:58 pm 08 Aug 13

CraigT said :

rosscoact said :

CraigT said :

Mysterious?

Tattoo parlour, bullet holes.

Sounds like the natural order of things, to me. Where you have tattoos, you have scum.

I realise that you are trolling but honestly, saying things like this makes you sound like a knucklehead

How many Nobel prize winners have had tattoos?

Tattoos are the vulgar mark of the least educated and most criminal elements in society. Bouncers, bikies, drug dealers and non-commissioned ranks who lack respect for their own bodies.

yeah, ok grandad

LSWCHP LSWCHP 7:48 pm 08 Aug 13

lovelydovely said :

willo said :

this tattoo shop is located beneath a row of residential units, lucky no stray bullets hit any of the tenants everything seems a bit weird about this incident as the gunners cop shop is only a few hundred metres up the road and the damage was not heard/ discovered by anyone untill the business owner arrived at work this morning. maybe a silencer was used?

I’m with you will… thought it was so weird that nothing was seen or heard, and so close to the station too! Pretty sure I’d notice gunshots if I lived in one of those units!

.22 subsonics from a rifle sound like gnats farts. At only 50m, you’d barely be able to tell it from someone coughing in your house. Of course, I dunno if that’s what was used, but if nobody heard anything it would seem likely.

bundah bundah 7:34 pm 08 Aug 13

CraigT said :

rosscoact said :

CraigT said :

Mysterious?

Tattoo parlour, bullet holes.

Sounds like the natural order of things, to me. Where you have tattoos, you have scum.

I realise that you are trolling but honestly, saying things like this makes you sound like a knucklehead

How many Nobel prize winners have had tattoos?

Tattoos are the vulgar mark of the least educated and most criminal elements in society. Bouncers, bikies, drug dealers and non-commissioned ranks who lack respect for their own bodies.

The fact is that there are a number of civilised responsible people who have adorned themselves for whatever reason so it’s not as black and white as you paint it…

CraigT CraigT 7:15 pm 08 Aug 13

rosscoact said :

CraigT said :

Mysterious?

Tattoo parlour, bullet holes.

Sounds like the natural order of things, to me. Where you have tattoos, you have scum.

I realise that you are trolling but honestly, saying things like this makes you sound like a knucklehead

How many Nobel prize winners have had tattoos?

Tattoos are the vulgar mark of the least educated and most criminal elements in society. Bouncers, bikies, drug dealers and non-commissioned ranks who lack respect for their own bodies.

rosscoact rosscoact 2:04 pm 08 Aug 13

CraigT said :

Mysterious?

Tattoo parlour, bullet holes.

Sounds like the natural order of things, to me. Where you have tattoos, you have scum.

I realise that you are trolling but honestly, saying things like this makes you sound like a knucklehead

Grimm Grimm 2:02 pm 08 Aug 13

IrishPete said :

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/ofarrell-rules-out-deals-with-shooters-20110413-1ddfw.html

He’s also full of crap.
Considering I have regularly spoken with the NSW SFP MPs who he made deals with, and know that the NP hunting deal was in return for their support of the Newcastle port sell-off, a deal was most certainly struck. What happened was, after they voted in favor of the port sell-off, the report on the GC was released (And deliberately held till after the vote), and used as a way to knife the SFP in the back.

Wouldn’t trust the NSW premier as far as I could throw him. Gonna be interesting passing any legislation after that performance…

IrishPete IrishPete 12:55 pm 08 Aug 13

KB1971 said :

*sigh*

A pack of dogs is a pack of dogs, wether it be wild or “domesticated”. I used that as an example of what a “domesitcated” dog can do which is presumably looked after and fed. A wild dog will hunt what ever it can to eat as it doent know when its next feed is coming from. There is no confusion, you are just picking apart word rather than actually reading what I was trying to say.

I am under no illusions on how wild dogs get into the NP’s or any other reserve for that matter. Farmers who live on the edge of townships have a lot of issues with dogs that wander from those towns, others as I have said have issues from NP’s and SF’s. You talk to anyone who traps dogs for a living and they say these dogs come in all shapes and sizes. Yes the do come from hunters but they also are strays and dumpings.

As for the proposal? Here is some info about the PROPOSAL to amend the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Act 1967: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/key/NSWNationalParksandReserves/$File/National+Parks+and+reserves+e-brief+12+2010.pdf

Now of course it was evolving, thats how the process works (simplistically), somone tables a bill (a proposal) and they then talk about it and make changes (evolving)…..to what we have now.

At no time did I say you were anti gun, I did however talk about the opposition to this proposal being anti gun and anti hunting and that those people would more than likely not have had to deal with the issues surrounding feral animals.

Now I know you probably wont actually really want to understand what I am saying, rather pick it apart to suit your argument but I was not wrong in what I said.

Apologies if facts get in the way of a good argument, but the document you link to is dated 2010 and relates to a Private Members Bill.

Because of the date of the document, the “Government” it refers to was the Labor Government. The NSW election was held in March 2011 and Labor were routed.

The current NSW Premier is widely reported as having made a pre-election promise not to introduce hunting in NPs. I can’t find a direct reference to that. (The document you link to gives a different impression, but they may have changed their stance between the statements quoted in that document and the election.)

I would expect to see a link to a document dated as late as 2012, preferably in the second half of 2012 or first half of this year, for it to be directly relevant to the current NSW Government’s proposals.

IP

Gungahlin Al Gungahlin Al 9:06 am 08 Aug 13

KB1971 said :

Gungahlin Al said :

This post implies that the shop is owned/run by a gang. It’s run by a local family, with kids in a local school. Whether you like them or not, tatts are no longer the domain of criminal bike gangs. This is Neanderthal behaviour.

Nope, not my intention at all Al. More of a swipe at the authorities and explaining my previous post but I can see when I re-read it how you can read that I was saying they had enemies and it was them that shot the shop up.

I was generalizing about how the firearm laws in NSW get scrutinized every time something like this happens. I hope it doesn’t happen here as the chances of this being a legal, registered firearm would be extremely slim.

Not commenting on your underlying intent, with which I disgree, but it’s good you can recognise/acknowledge how your initial remark could be interpreted. Cheers.

KB1971 KB1971 8:36 am 08 Aug 13

IrishPete said :

KB1971 said :

IrishPete said :

KB1971 said :

Grimm said :

It makes very little sense to not take advantage of a system that has proven to be incredibly safe and effective, and actually generates more money than it costs.

Its a bit like fishing, it brings people and funds into areas that dont see a lot of tourism and benifit from the flow through traffic. It may not be a lot but its something.

I know whenever I go down to Bombala to a mated property I always stop and spend some money, wether it be fuel, food or even a couple of beers from the pub. It all helps the community, along with the pest control.

Not if it scares off all the non-hunting users of National Parks, as it was clearly going to do, which is why they opposed it.

IP

You really didnt look at the original proposal at all did you? Did you only read what was propagandered in the press?

As Grimm said, it certainly wasnt going to be in popular sections of the NP’s or in all NP’s for that matter. The system has been working quite well in the NSW SF’s for quite some time and works in other countries.

Here is a challenge to you, spare a thought to the farmers who live alongside our local NP’s who regularly have stock taken by packs of dogs. It is an ongoing problem and absolutely horrendous for a poor sheep. I have seen dogs attack sheep, eat some of them (usually starting in the crotch area) al leave them there alive and in agony to die or have the farmer put them down.

The farmers are able to eradicate the areas on their farms where the dogs live and breed but have absolutely no control over the fence in the NP which is where the dogs naturally go for a safe haven once the heat is on.

On one occaision I pesonally had to help a mate with property on Old Tuggeranong Road who had two dogs come and attack their flock. In an afternoon these two dogs killed 19 sheep……sorry, maimed about half and the others either died of shock or the lucky ones had their throats torn out. We had to shoot the ones that were still alive as the dogs had mutilated them so badly that they could not be saved. These were town dogs with collars who are fed and probably went home that night and got a pat on the heads by their owners.

The city/greenie faction that was so horrified about hunters in NP’s have probably never had to deal with anything like that. It is hypocrytical that they go so hard on a pig farmer for suposedly doing the wrong thing but cannot/will not see what pack of half breed wild dogs can do to other animals and will object when someone wants to do something about it.

Anyway, here is a pic of the dog tree on the road to Nimmo out the back of Cooma:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidallenquirk/6161465395/

Your post confuses the issue of dogs roaming from their owners’ properties and wild dogs.

Wild dogs are generally believed to be dogs left behind by pig hunters (not believed by hunters, who will desperately try to find someone else to blame).

One of the problems with your and Grimm’s posts is the claim that there was a a proposal. There was not. It was evolving. The final proposal was never announced. So there is and was no proposal for me to read. Feel free to post a link to whatever you think was the proposal.

I allow people to hunt ferals on my property. Some were there this week. To claim that I am anti-gun is stereotyping and wrong.

IP.

*sigh*

A pack of dogs is a pack of dogs, wether it be wild or “domesticated”. I used that as an example of what a “domesitcated” dog can do which is presumably looked after and fed. A wild dog will hunt what ever it can to eat as it doent know when its next feed is coming from. There is no confusion, you are just picking apart word rather than actually reading what I was trying to say.

I am under no illusions on how wild dogs get into the NP’s or any other reserve for that matter. Farmers who live on the edge of townships have a lot of issues with dogs that wander from those towns, others as I have said have issues from NP’s and SF’s. You talk to anyone who traps dogs for a living and they say these dogs come in all shapes and sizes. Yes the do come from hunters but they also are strays and dumpings.

As for the proposal? Here is some info about the PROPOSAL to amend the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Act 1967: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/key/NSWNationalParksandReserves/$File/National+Parks+and+reserves+e-brief+12+2010.pdf

Now of course it was evolving, thats how the process works (simplistically), somone tables a bill (a proposal) and they then talk about it and make changes (evolving)…..to what we have now.

At no time did I say you were anti gun, I did however talk about the opposition to this proposal being anti gun and anti hunting and that those people would more than likely not have had to deal with the issues surrounding feral animals.

Now I know you probably wont actually really want to understand what I am saying, rather pick it apart to suit your argument but I was not wrong in what I said.

Basilbrush Basilbrush 2:29 am 08 Aug 13

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

golden_youth said :

this specific tattoo shop makes a big deal on their website that they are not affiliated with any outlaw bike gangs so who knows what could be going down.

That’s the reason.

Moron rebels think they own canberra and only they can have tattoo shops. Well, that’s not even really how it works. It’s more if a stand over operation.

It’s awesome that tatts on tatts off is not being intimidated. From their website it appears they have afp and ADF connections. Lets hope this mess is sorted out quickly and idiotic try hards wanting to be tough are dealt with.

+1
This shop has only been open for 6 months….and do not have any links to the bike gangs…hence the scare tactics. Keep strong guys and keep up the good work.

IrishPete IrishPete 10:18 pm 07 Aug 13

KB1971 said :

IrishPete said :

KB1971 said :

Grimm said :

It makes very little sense to not take advantage of a system that has proven to be incredibly safe and effective, and actually generates more money than it costs.

Its a bit like fishing, it brings people and funds into areas that dont see a lot of tourism and benifit from the flow through traffic. It may not be a lot but its something.

I know whenever I go down to Bombala to a mated property I always stop and spend some money, wether it be fuel, food or even a couple of beers from the pub. It all helps the community, along with the pest control.

Not if it scares off all the non-hunting users of National Parks, as it was clearly going to do, which is why they opposed it.

IP

You really didnt look at the original proposal at all did you? Did you only read what was propagandered in the press?

As Grimm said, it certainly wasnt going to be in popular sections of the NP’s or in all NP’s for that matter. The system has been working quite well in the NSW SF’s for quite some time and works in other countries.

Here is a challenge to you, spare a thought to the farmers who live alongside our local NP’s who regularly have stock taken by packs of dogs. It is an ongoing problem and absolutely horrendous for a poor sheep. I have seen dogs attack sheep, eat some of them (usually starting in the crotch area) al leave them there alive and in agony to die or have the farmer put them down.

The farmers are able to eradicate the areas on their farms where the dogs live and breed but have absolutely no control over the fence in the NP which is where the dogs naturally go for a safe haven once the heat is on.

On one occaision I pesonally had to help a mate with property on Old Tuggeranong Road who had two dogs come and attack their flock. In an afternoon these two dogs killed 19 sheep……sorry, maimed about half and the others either died of shock or the lucky ones had their throats torn out. We had to shoot the ones that were still alive as the dogs had mutilated them so badly that they could not be saved. These were town dogs with collars who are fed and probably went home that night and got a pat on the heads by their owners.

The city/greenie faction that was so horrified about hunters in NP’s have probably never had to deal with anything like that. It is hypocrytical that they go so hard on a pig farmer for suposedly doing the wrong thing but cannot/will not see what pack of half breed wild dogs can do to other animals and will object when someone wants to do something about it.

Anyway, here is a pic of the dog tree on the road to Nimmo out the back of Cooma:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidallenquirk/6161465395/

Your post confuses the issue of dogs roaming from their owners’ properties and wild dogs.

Wild dogs are generally believed to be dogs left behind by pig hunters (not believed by hunters, who will desperately try to find someone else to blame).

One of the problems with your and Grimm’s posts is the claim that there was a a proposal. There was not. It was evolving. The final proposal was never announced. So there is and was no proposal for me to read. Feel free to post a link to whatever you think was the proposal.

I allow people to hunt ferals on my property. Some were there this week. To claim that I am anti-gun is stereotyping and wrong.

IP.

willo willo 9:43 pm 07 Aug 13

CraigT said :

Mysterious?

Tattoo parlour, bullet holes.

Sounds like the natural order of things, to me. Where you have tattoos, you have scum.

that is easily the stupidest comment on the entire thread, couldnt be bothered with a long winded reply…. so here you go craig t this is just for you
http://piv.pivpiv.dk/

KB1971 KB1971 9:32 pm 07 Aug 13

Gungahlin Al said :

KB1971 said :

IrishPete said :

KB1971 said :

Watch the backlash against responsible firearms an. owners like in NSW……….

Are you saying it is responsible to shoot up a tattoo shop?

Or are you assuming that the weapon used was imported illegally rather than stolen?

IP

What I am saying is whenever some egghead in NSW shoots up one of their enemies houses with an illegal firearm, the firearm laws are scrutinised or tightened. It makes ot harder for someone who wants to go target shooting, hunting or pest control to go about their business.

The latest round of recording is a perfect example, every ammunition transaction has to be recorded in NSW. The log is collated by the gun shop. What does the gun shop do with it? Nothing, it sits under the counter until someobody MAY come and look at it. There is no database that is used to record this info in case the bullets bought in the south coast are used to shoot up a school on the north coast.

Its not the normal firearm licence holder that is doing this stuff, it the illegally imported/stolen firearms that cause the issues.

This post implies that the shop is owned/run by a gang. It’s run by a local family, with kids in a local school. Whether you like them or not, tatts are no longer the domain of criminal bike gangs. This is Neanderthal behaviour.

Nope, not my intention at all Al. More of a swipe at the authorities and explaining my previous post but I can see when I re-read it how you can read that I was saying they had enemies and it was them that shot the shop up.

I was generalizing about how the firearm laws in NSW get scrutinized every time something like this happens. I hope it doesn’t happen here as the chances of this being a legal, registered firearm would be extremely slim.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site