A LIVING HISTORY BLOG.

18TH CENTURY LIVING HISTORY IN AUSTRALIA.

Friday, 18 May 2012

Conrad Hawkwood said... and my reply.

Conrad Hawkwood said...
good idea too many guns around as it is..

I can understand your comment Conrad, though I think it misplaced. You obviously have a downer on guns and I can assume that you are not a gun owner yourself. However, there are legitimate uses for guns, for sport target shooting, for historical reenactment, Living History, and ferral pest erradication. The use of the gun in the latter instance reduces the use of poisons, & therefore benefits the environment & saves native animals.
Government gun laws are not designed to reduce guns in the hands of criminals, they do not hamper criminals. Criminals have no gun license & totally ignore gun laws. Only we legitimate gun owners pay the price for ineffective firearms legislation. I am definately pro gun legislation if it will hamper the criminal use of firearms.
What we need is higher penalties for the misuse of firearms. Do you honestly think that banning the ownership if a single barrel single shot flintlock muzzle-loading gun will hamper any criminals?!!! Think about it in a sensible way Conrad, don't be taken in by legislation simply made to gain your vote in the next ellection. Lobby for stricter penalties for the misuse of firearms, fines, imprisonment, loss of firearms & loss of licence. But this will only effect the morons in our communities, it will have little effect on criminals, nothing will.
If the criminals have guns, & we do not Conrad, where do you seriously think that will take us? I am alive today because I legally own a gun, otherwise there is a good chance I would not be here. Do you think you have the right to deny me my life & the ability to defend my family just because you don't like guns?
Sincere regards, Keith H. Burgess.
NECLHG.
ALHF.
ALHO.

10 comments:

Frontier Carpenter said...

As a law enforcement officer I have to agree with you Le Loup. Criminals will commit crimes they don't care what the law states. It doesn't make sense to restrict the rights of those not breaking the laws.

The problem we have in the states and one that I have personally seen is that the cops arrest felons with guns and the courts go soft on them. The Fast and Furious operation is a prime example.

A few other observations from being in law enforcement. Everyone should have gun training. Too many idiots out there. When they do something stupid it comes back on every competent gun owner.One thing that upsets me is people who open carry hand guns. I'm not saying that open carry is bad I'm just saying that when I went through the police academy we spent almost as much time training on hand gun retention as we did shooting. Bad people will take your gun if they see it so train to prevent it from happening.

I have seen more people stabbed and or beaten than I have seen shot. Most gun shot wounds I have seen in law enforcement have been self inflicted.

My last words of rambling. Never carry a gun for protection unless you are prepared to kill. Guns are easy to take away from a person if they are not committed to using it. And as I learned in the military never bring a knife to a gun fight and never bring a pistol when you can have a rifle.

Gorges Smythe said...

I've always wondered why we insist on separating "gun crime" from the rest. Is a man less dead from a blow to the head from an iron pipe than from a bullet?

Le Loup said...

Ex law enforcement myself Frontier, & I totally agree with what you say.
Regards, Keith.

Bob Mc said...

Excellent reply Keith, and every member of the anti-gun crowd over here should read it. Unfortunately they have been told the same thing many times, and it makes no impression.

Le Loup said...

I think Gorges that using a modern gun takes away that direct contact. Using a golf club or a piece of pipe to battersomeone to death is very hands on. However, to be realistic in regards to muzzle-loading guns, if what they are worried about is nutters killing ther own families, it is not going to happen with a muzzle-loading gun. There are plenty of other weapons out there more suitable.
Keith.

Moad said...

Nicely put Keith and all other posters. A criminal will get a gun whenever they need it, that's a fact. Putting in place laws that are floored and unworkable (because criminals don't abide by the law) only effects the law abiding gun owner. All these emotions against guns are stirred up by the media, and politicians who want to gain election votes. They treat the public like sheep, which unfortunately many are, thus causing them not to use their own common sense and falling into line with whatever they are fed.

Le Loup said...

Thank you Shane. I hope Conrad can look at these replies objectively & see the light, or at least understand our point of view, but as Bob sais, they have been told many times already but still don't see it.
Regards, Keith.

Le Loup said...

This makes the Firearms Advisory Committee look pretty stupid & inaffectual. They have to be all sheep or morons unless of course they are not being consulted at all or being totally ignored. In which case why arn't they speaking up & making it public?

Bob said...

"The second amendment recognizes a citizens right to be armed. What it really means is a citizens right to self defense. Anytime some schmuck tells you that you aren't allowed to be armed for any reason, you really need to ask yourself why does said schmuck want you unarmed and defenseless? What exactly is said schmuck planning to do to you that works better when you can't defend yourself?"

Found here. (Gregarious Loner blog, sidebar)

Le Loup said...

Thanks for your input Bob. We are not legally allowed to own a gun for self-defence, & in fact the law states that we must be injured or shot first before we can defend ourselves. How is that for our government looking after its law abiding citizens?!
Keith.