Right Thinking From The Left Coast
Do, or do not. There is no 'try'. - Yoda

‘Ad Ax
by Lee

It’s the latest Australian gun control success!

A MAN has been charged after allegedly threatening police with an axe on a south-east Queensland street.

The man armed himself with the weapon on King Street, Caboolture, around 9.30pm (AEST) yesterday, police said.

When police went to investigate, he allegedly raised the axe to his shoulder threatening the officers.

In the US, the second he raised the axe in a threatening manner he would have taken six in the chest.  This is, unfortunately, just the latest example of rising knife- and blade-related violence in Australia since they enacted their draconian gun control laws.

Posted by Lee on 03/31/07 at 08:18 PM (Discuss this in the forums)

Comments


Posted by on 03/31/07 at 11:51 PM from Canada

In the US, the second he raised the axe in a threatening manner he would have taken six in the chest. 

Interesting that you think killing the guy would have been a better result than arresting him.

But then you do live in LA, crime free city of the world - so I guess you know what you are talking about ;)

Posted by on 04/01/07 at 01:35 AM from Australia

This is common in Australian cities now - assailants have used knives, axes, Samurai swords, meat cleavers, hammers etc.

Maybe the gun laws are draconian, but only for ordinary citizens. The cops seem to have no problem with Muslim Lebanese armed to the teeth.

Posted by on 04/01/07 at 01:48 AM from Canada

This is common in Australian cities now - assailants have used knives, axes, Samurai swords, meat cleavers, hammers etc.

No laws are going to prevent the existance of criminals, but personally I would prefer the criminals to be armed with knives instead of guns.

Posted by on 04/01/07 at 03:09 AM from Canada

No laws are going to prevent the existance of criminals, but personally I would prefer the criminals to be armed with knives instead of guns.

I guess someone has to say it, and I’m up at this hour.

Padders, why do you think that the criminals won’t have guns?  Is it the gun laws that will prevent criminals from getting guns?

Just curious.

If you say we can outlaw gun manufacturing, regulate more, or tax more, then how will you deal with the black market gun manufacturers? 

Moreover, if we did create laws to stop gun production, then the only people that will have guns are police and criminals.  The problem here is that police aren’t always there when you need them.  The bigger problem is that criminals are there when you don’t need them.

Posted by on 04/01/07 at 08:43 AM from Japan

Moreover, if we did create laws to stop gun production, then the only people that will have guns are police and criminals.

Actually, that’s pretty much the situation in Japan. It really helps - if you can’t arrest the criminals for anything else, then you can always get them for firearms possession. Most other people are completely horrified about the thought of owning a gun. Really, really horrified.

I like it here. I feel safe in the streets.

Posted by on 04/01/07 at 10:32 AM from Canada

Padders, why do you think that the criminals won’t have guns?  Is it the gun laws that will prevent criminals from getting guns?

Well, Lee’s only article seemed to suggest this. He considered it a failure of gun grabbing legislation that criminals now had knives and not guns, so there seems to be a suggestion - even by lee - that gun grabbing means criminals have less guns.

Look, i am not suggesting a ban on hand guns or such in the US for three reasons. Firstly, you have so many guns trying to grab them all back is impossible. Secondly, your borders are so porous you could probably smuggle a 747 from Mexico and no one would notice, let alone trying to stop guns and thirdly your population believes having a gun is a right, taking a right away from people that think they have one is never a great idea.

However, the story in the UK is different. I am not saying that gun grabbing prevents the existance of all guns but it certainly massivly reduces their prevalence. Have a gun and you simply go straight to jail, it’s a pretty big discouragement. Yes - there are still crimes and shottings comitted with these guns but the number is extremley small. In our case, even tougher gun laws will have positive effects. To remind you though, the policy like it guns are banned and most of the policy like it that they do not have guns themselves. Personally, I think the current state of affairs works pretty well for us - I doubt it would work for you.

Posted by on 04/01/07 at 10:33 AM from Canada

policy = police.

Posted by on 04/01/07 at 10:48 AM from United States

Huh, the UK is getting ready to ban swords now as well since everybody that can’t get a gun has obtained the next best thing.  Next up sticks and stones quickly followed by any martial arts training.

Posted by on 04/01/07 at 10:55 AM from Japan

I don’t understand the argument. Padders and I both live in countries where most people dont want guns legalized. And there isn’t a significant gun crime problem. If you believe that guns are necessary in the US, then fine, but dont force your model on us.

Posted by dakrat on 04/01/07 at 11:20 AM from United States

Huh, the UK is getting ready to ban swords now as well since everybody that can’t get a gun has obtained the next best thing.

Isn’t it already illegal to carry a pocketknife over there?

Posted by on 04/01/07 at 11:28 AM from United States

If you believe that guns are necessary in the US, then fine, but dont force your model on us.

How exactly would we ever do that? If you’re expecting us not to criticize, you’re probably dreaming.

Posted by on 04/01/07 at 01:27 PM from United States

that gun grabbing means criminals have less guns.

I would not make that assumption.

but it certainly massivly reduces their prevalence.

Not in the criminal community, only the rights of law abiders are curtailed.

and most of the policy like it that they do not have guns themselves

This really surprises me........if it is true.

Rightly or wrongly guns are an intregal part of our American culture and history, they are part of our constitution (some rather smart people have posited that the second amendment secures all the others).
It is convenient (and lazy) too corollate guns ubiquity with crime. The municipality with the most stringent gun laws (D.C.) have one of the highest gun related crime rates, and in Texas now even little old ladies are packing heat.

Posted by on 04/01/07 at 01:58 PM from Canada

Padders, I am not American.  I still am and always have been Canadian.  Canada doesn’t have the overt gun culture that the US doesn’t, however we do have a lot of guns and gun owners.  Ironically, it’s only been in the last few years that gun related violence has really shot up in this country.  This is at the same time we started our gun registry (remember the $2 million project that cost $1 billion).  I’m not saying there is a direct relationship; however, the gun registry has proven to be pointless for lowering gun violence. 

If more laws against guns really made society safer then I’d support it.  I just see the increased laws as a band aid solution.  It’s easy to blame a gun because it’s frightening, but fear isn’t a reason to create a law.  There are bigger problems causing violence and that’s the people using the weapons, not the weapons themselves.  The point of Lee’s post is that if people want to become violent, they will find a way.  If people want to hurt others, they can’t without a gun.  For example, a mixture of bleach and ammonia in a crowded place would do just as much damage as a gun, but we can’t ban those products.  Or people can start making explosives with shrapnel.  It may take a little more intelligence to make theses things, but it doesn’t take much intelligence to buy them from someone who does, much like a gun.  I remember reading an article a few years about Chinese using bombs to strike at people because they couldn’t get guns. 

Again, I have to mention that I don’t own a gun, don’t care to own a gun, and have never even fired a gun.  I do respect the right of responsible citizens to pursue hobbies and interests as they see fit.  I don’t think its right for the easily frightened people in society to stop the pursuits of responsible law abiding citizens.  This is what I’d call a democratic failure.  (Gasp!!! What, democracy can produce something bad???? Say it ain’t so!!!!!) I think that some gun enthusiasts are gun nuts that only get a sense of power from holding a gun.  They are pathetic losers.  As long as they act responsibly, then I don’t care what their motivations are.  The majority of gun enthusiasts however are just people that have an interest and a hobby.  It’s no more immoral or wrong than a stamp collection, just louder.  These people should not be oppressed by the failures of a democratic nanny state.

Posted by HARLEY on 04/01/07 at 03:49 PM from United States

Posted by padders on 03/31/07 at 11:51 PM from Canada

In the US, the second he raised the axe in a threatening manner he would have taken six in the chest. 

Interesting that you think killing the guy would have been a better result than arresting him.

But then you do live in LA, crime free city of the world - so I guess you know what you are talking about ;)

You ever SEE what a fuckin AX can do to a person you dumb ass.. I fucking have....
i Would have drill teh fuck teh second he riased teh AX up…

fucking liberls
GOD DAM,, ... FUCK

Just so you fucking know pubddles i lost someone tht was close to me.. she was killed by a jacks as who used a AX and a machette on her and her husband…

Posted by HARLEY on 04/01/07 at 03:51 PM from United States

Actually, that’s pretty much the situation in Japan. It really helps - if you can’t arrest the criminals for anything else, then you can always get them for firearms possession. Most other people are completely horrified about the thought of owning a gun. Really, really horrified.

OH yes because they a re culturally fucking SUBJECTS.... not free men.... check into the history of firearms in Japan and HOW and WHY they were banned so early.

Posted by on 04/01/07 at 05:08 PM from Australia

Padders - ‘No laws are going to prevent the existance of criminals, but personally I would prefer the criminals to be armed with knives instead of guns.’

It doesn’t matter what you prefer - do you imagine that criminals consult ordinary citizens on weapons of choice? Personally, I would rather be shot than hacked to pieces.

My point (I thought I made it clear, but apparently not) is that ordinary Australian gun owners have been disarmed but the criminals have not - guess they forgot to hand in their guns on Buyback day. So now - to clarify even further - only the thugs and crims are armed. And if an ordinary citizen shoots an attacker using an ‘illegal’ weapon, that person is likely to go to prison.

Australia is not a gun culture in the same sense as the US but the government made a monumental blunder by enacting this law. Honest people who handed in their guns are targets for armed criminals. Since the gun laws, Sydney has had hundreds of car jackings, home invasions, armed robberies etc - all carried out by armed criminals. Just a coincidence, I guess.

Posted by on 04/01/07 at 06:50 PM from Canada

Huh, the UK is getting ready to ban swords now as well since everybody that can’t get a gun has obtained the next best thing.  Next up sticks and stones quickly followed by any martial arts training.

There is I believe legislation on carrying swords in public. To be honest, I don’t have a major problem with laws stopping people carrying 2 foot swords down the high street. Your other suggestions are just you being silly. If you can’t see the difference between handguns and 2 feet swords and everything else, where there is little point having a discussion on the subject.

I would not make that assumption.

Well Lee seems to. He regularly quotes these sort of stories where instead of using guns criminals use some other weapon, as if this is an argument against banning guns.

Still, numerous reports in the UK show criminals carry less guns since these laws have been introduced.

This really surprises me........if it is true.

Go and look it up, there is a reason the policy don’t carry guns routinley, the don’t want to.

It is convenient (and lazy) too corollate guns ubiquity with crime. The municipality with the most stringent gun laws (D.C.) have one of the highest gun related crime rates, and in Texas now even little old ladies are packing heat.

Agreed, but gun control laws in the US are pointless because they are so localised and there are so many guns already. This is very different to a lot of other countries.

Padders, I am not American.  I still am and always have been Canadian.  Canada doesn’t have the overt gun culture that the US doesn’t, however we do have a lot of guns and gun owners.  Ironically, it’s only been in the last few years that gun related violence has really shot up in this country.  This is at the same time we started our gun registry (remember the $2 million project that cost $1 billion).  I’m not saying there is a direct relationship; however, the gun registry has proven to be pointless for lowering gun violence. 

Interestingly, until tomorrow I have been living in Whislter - it had its first murder (a shooting) in 25 years up here.

If more laws against guns really made society safer then I’d support it.  I just see the increased laws as a band aid solution.  It’s easy to blame a gun because it’s frightening, but fear isn’t a reason to create a law.  There are bigger problems causing violence and that’s the people using the weapons, not the weapons themselves.  The point of Lee’s post is that if people want to become violent, they will find a way.  If people want to hurt others, they can’t without a gun.  For example, a mixture of bleach and ammonia in a crowded place would do just as much damage as a gun, but we can’t ban those products.  Or people can start making explosives with shrapnel.  It may take a little more intelligence to make theses things, but it doesn’t take much intelligence to buy them from someone who does, much like a gun.  I remember reading an article a few years about Chinese using bombs to strike at people because they couldn’t get guns. 

Someone who wants to kill someone will find a way. Most gun deaths are not pre medated murders however. They are deaths through arguments (e.g. in Whistler) or from a crime gone wrong. Without guns, crime will still happen, people will still get in fights, but less people will die.

Again, I have to mention that I don’t own a gun, don’t care to own a gun, and have never even fired a gun.  I do respect the right of responsible citizens to pursue hobbies and interests as they see fit.  I don’t think its right for the easily frightened people in society to stop the pursuits of responsible law abiding citizens.  This is what I’d call a democratic failure.  (Gasp!!! What, democracy can produce something bad???? Say it ain’t so!!!!!) I think that some gun enthusiasts are gun nuts that only get a sense of power from holding a gun.  They are pathetic losers.  As long as they act responsibly, then I don’t care what their motivations are.  The majority of gun enthusiasts however are just people that have an interest and a hobby.  It’s no more immoral or wrong than a stamp collection, just louder.  These people should not be oppressed by the failures of a democratic nanny state.

You may be surprised to know that I do own a gun that I have shot multiple times, but it is a shotgun - locked in a cabinet at home. There are rules on how it must be kept and transported. I could use it for self-defense at home I guess but it is not a likely course of action, and I certainly have no problem not being allowed to carry it down the high street.

Shotguns are handguns are of course very different things, not many people get killed with shot guns.

I get the libertarian argument for gun ownership and it resonates with me. This is one of those areas where I guess I move from my libertarian principles a bit.

Harley, if you can engage in an argument without swearing and making it personal, I will respond; otherwise I am just going to ignore you.

It doesn’t matter what you prefer - do you imagine that criminals consult ordinary citizens on weapons of choice? Personally, I would rather be shot than hacked to pieces.

But our criminals don’t carry guns. I am not trying to persuade criminals, they decide for themselves that if you are going to rob a house or whatever its not worth the risk carrying a gun.

Generally, people don’t hack people to bits. It’s a hell of a lot harder to stab someone to death than it is to shoot them.

My point (I thought I made it clear, but apparently not) is that ordinary Australian gun owners have been disarmed but the criminals have not - guess they forgot to hand in their guns on Buyback day. So now - to clarify even further - only the thugs and crims are armed. And if an ordinary citizen shoots an attacker using an ‘illegal’ weapon, that person is likely to go to prison.

I certainly understand this point and its why I wouldn’t suggest “gun grabbing” is a good idea in the UK. I can’t comment on Oz as I have no idea how prevalent gun ownership amongst those we would rather not have guns is.

Posted by on 04/01/07 at 08:04 PM from United States

Go and look it up, there is a reason the policy don’t carry guns routinley, the don’t want to.

I did look it up...........and you are right. Although, to be fair, there are “authorized armed officers” on the street at all times.
I am just stunned at this given <a href="http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html">this</A.
One excerpt:
In reality, the English approach has not re-duced violent crime. Instead it has left law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals who are confident that their victims have neither the means nor the legal right to resist them. Imitating this model would be a public safety disaster for the United States.

It seems that a large percentage of you police officers are under the deluted notion and C.S. and a baton is sufficient for their own protection.
I don’t get it.

Posted by on 04/01/07 at 08:06 PM from United States

let me try that hperlonk again......duh.

linky

Posted by on 04/01/07 at 08:12 PM from United States

you police officers

I meant your police officers, (spastic fingers today).

Posted by on 04/02/07 at 05:06 AM from United Kingdom

Gun Grabbing won’t work. It was fine in the UK because there were very few guns to grab.

In reality, the English approach has not re-duced violent crime.

Although I would say that the goal wasn’t really to reduce violent crime, just to limit the severity (for want of a better word) of that violence.

Instead it has left law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals who are confident that their victims have neither the means nor the legal right to resist them

Um, kinda. Although I think the criminal is probably going to go for the path of least resistance, and go for a house that is empty first, rather than do the research onto whether the owner has a shotgun/cricket bat/is one hard motherf*cker. The other point is that we were ‘at the mercy’ to these criminals before, cos we don’t really carry guns. Even if they were legal, the only people who would own a gun would be the people intent on using them, i.e. Criminals. Honestly, the protection of property using lethal force thing is not as ingrained into our psyches as much as it is for you guys.

A few years ago, when I lived in a really tough neighbourhood (Brixton) we got broken into. He took some DVD’s, my XBox, and a few other bits and peices. I came to the top of the stairs, shouted, and he legged it. Cos he didn’t want to get caught. The ‘confrontation’ wasn’t there. He just wanted to nick some stuff with as little hassle as possible. I always wonder what that situation would be like if we were in a culture of guns? Would one of us be dead? In the scenario that happened, I got a few new DVD’s a brand new XBox, and the police picked up the guy trying to use the stolen chequebook.

Imitating this model would be a public safety disaster for the United States.

I do agree with this though…

It seems that a large percentage of you police officers are under the deluted notion and C.S. and a baton is sufficient for their own protection.

Don’t be an arrogant f*ck. These people are brave public servants, who put themselves in harms way every day. To call them deluded is just f*cking disrespectful. I think they know their job better than you do.

Actually, does anyone have any information on comparing police deaths in the UK and the US? (Not leading here, just interested to see which is the more ‘dangerous’ job...)

Posted by on 04/02/07 at 08:10 AM from United Kingdom

Well I believe one of the reasons most police officers don’t want to carry guns regularly is due to the issue of escalation. Ie if they start to carry guns and if ordinary citizens are carrying guns then the criminals HAVE to have guns.

As it stands thieves and the like are a lot less likely to carry guns as they are expensive and relatively hard to get hold of. Also if they are caught with them they will be royally fucked, as opposed to being just done for stealing, they will be put away for a hell of a lot longer.

So I guess rightly or wrongly that’s why a lot of police don’t want guns.

Posted by on 04/02/07 at 09:11 AM from United States

Don’t be an arrogant f*ck. These people are brave public servants, who put themselves in harms way every day. To call them deluded is just f*cking disrespectful. I think they know their job better than you do.

Excuse me but I seriously doubt it, having been a police officer for the last 30 years.
I did not mean any disrespect so don’t assume such.
I don’t know what you do for a living but it took about 1 week on the job to realize that CS and a baton are woofully inadequate. It is apples and oranges because we do have different cultures and different mindsets, but if there was only one gun in circulation within the criminal element, I would make sure I was armed while on duty. I owe that to my family.

Posted by on 04/02/07 at 09:20 AM from United States

Cheekydave, you are probably right in everything you said, but the bottom line for me is my personal safety. Most cops go their whole career without firing a shot, I have never been that lucky.
Its like a high rise window washer, the waist harness is a necessary part of his safety equipment, and he would be a fool to go to work without it.

Posted by on 04/02/07 at 09:34 AM from Australia

The New Zealand police don’t carry guns either. I live in Australia now, and I much preferred being in a country where police aren’t routinely armed. If you can’t protect yourself with a baton, retreat and call for armed backup. That’s what radios are for.

Posted by on 04/02/07 at 12:53 PM from Canada

The New Zealand police don’t carry guns either. I live in Australia now, and I much preferred being in a country where police aren’t routinely armed. If you can’t protect yourself with a baton, retreat and call for armed backup. That’s what radios are for.

I agree, when travelling, seeing armed police has never made me feel more secure, the opposite in fact be that in the US or a third world country. I don’t much like all the armed police you now see in UK airports either.

Instead it has left law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals who are confident that their victims have neither the means nor the legal right to resist them

The law does need tightening to provide more protection for victims of crime defending themselves, on that I would agree. But very very few people in the UK ever had guns for protection, so it is wrong to suggest that removing the few hand guns there were has really changed much in that regard.

Posted by on 04/02/07 at 02:16 PM from United States

when travelling, seeing armed police has never made me feel more secure

The reason behind being armed has nothing to do with your feelings, it is for THEIR safety.

If you can’t protect yourself with a baton, retreat and call for armed backup. That’s what radios are for.

I’m very happy for you that this belief works in New Zealand (in my next life maybe I can work there) but to transpose that belief to what would work in America is beyond silly.

Posted by on 04/02/07 at 04:29 PM from United Kingdom

But very very few people in the UK ever had guns for protection

Except in Northern Ireland, where you could get a PPW (Personal Protection Weapon) licence if you could prove your life was in danger, which most people (especially those working in security or construction) could.

And our police have been armed for as long as I can remember. Often with .357 Magnums…

Next entry: Must See TV

Previous entry: Shit!!

<< Back to main