Thread: Bureaucracy gone mad?

As wouldwood said it is easy to make a gun and it is even easier to buy the ammo but if the ammo was very hard to get who could make it. Yes black powder can be made ( I did when I was a kid) but that limits you to 1 shot and 60 seconds to reload

This argument could go on for ever but a nut is a nut and will use whatever weapon does the most damage

Originally Posted by Calm

I dont like the restrictions either

but

think about the poor bank teller/shop assistant with a weapon pointed at them

Do you think they can tell it's not going to kill them - or should they ask "by the way is that a real gun or just a replica" youre pointing at me.

But didn't Joh bring in a Law up here stipulating that upon entry to a bank, robbers have to declare whether the gun they are using is real or a replica? Or is this just another one of my dreams that I'm remembering?

Or, it could be another one of Joh's dreams you're remembering .

No I think you err R.C. The Brits were tracking terrorists and the guy that got shot was mistaken for a backpack bomber. He was a black African, He was an illegal immigrant and he ran when told to stop. Now the police who caught him in a busy railway station believed he was about to blow himself and others up. In that position, ask yourself what you would do. Very easy to be wise after the fact but remember this was after the London bombing and the slaughter of innocent people. You seem to believe laws are made then people break them. The law reacts to what is, it does not create the problem.

Well no, actually, he was a legal Brazilian immigrant and he was just going to work, and he was shot because of a police bungle.
From the Guardian

I believe if you check correctly he was on an expired visitors visa so should not be working, that is why he ran from the police. Anyways yes the police got it wrong but so did he, he ran and jumped a barrier. Would you take the risk of him killing a packed carriage of comuters. Its split second judgement and sorry but when he ran he sealed his fate.

Originally Posted by rrobor

No I think you err R.C. The Brits were tracking terrorists and the guy that got shot was mistaken for a backpack bomber. He was a black African, He was an illegal immigrant and he ran when told to stop. Now the police who caught him in a busy railway station believed he was about to blow himself and others up.

He jumped no barrier, did not run and the police most likely were not dressed in a uniform making them recognisable as police..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

Three surveillance officers, codenamed Hotel 1, Hotel 3 and Hotel 9, followed Menezes on to the train. According to Hotel 3, Menezes sat down with a glass panel to his right about two seats in. Hotel 3 then took a seat on the left with about two or three passengers between Menezes and himself. When the firearms officers arrived on the platform, Hotel 3 moved to the door, blocked it from closing with his left foot, and shouted 'He's here!' to identify the suspect's location.

The firearms officers boarded the train and it was initially claimed they challenged the suspect, though later report indicates he was not challenged.^[12] According to Hotel 3, Menezes then stood up and advanced towards the officers and Hotel 3, at which point Hotel 3 grabbed him, pinned his arms against his torso, and pushed him back into the seat. Although Menezes was being restrained, his body was straight and not in a natural sitting position. Hotel 3 heard a shot close to his ear, and was dragged away on to the floor of the carriage. He shouted 'Police!' and with hands raised was dragged out of the carriage by one of the armed officers who had boarded the train. Hotel 3 then heard several gunshots while being dragged out.^[13] Two officers fired a total of eleven shots according to the number of empty shell casings found on the floor of the train afterwards. Menezes was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder at close range, and died at the scene.

Seems to me they shot him in cold blood..I thought police were there to uphold the law, not break it, it does not matter now as the ones in charge got away with the murder..

In that position, ask yourself what you would do. Very easy to be wise after the fact but remember this was after the London bombing and the slaughter of innocent people. You seem to believe laws are made then people break them. The law reacts to what is, it does not create the problem.

So you create state sponsored terror yourself thereby letting the terrorists win..You are not going to die from a terrorist bombing...1463 people died on the roads alone last year, yet the public say that is acceptable...0 die from terrorism and we have to give up lots of things we used to enjoy..

Terrorists rely on the law being fair. they play on the inability civilised countries have of dealing with them. If you once allow people to dictate how your country should be run, then you give in. I was not born in Australia, I chose to come here. If at any time I dont like what Australia is I have a choice, democratically try to change things, or get on a plane at Tullamarine. There will always be mistakes, but when you deal with guys who wished to go into an Army camp in NSW and shoot as many people as they could, because they believed that was the wish of their God, civilised law has to be modified.

I remember that school in Dunblane and the gym in which that horrible incident took place because I am a former student. I also remember the troubles in Belfast in the late seventies because I lived in Whitehead (near Belfast) for two and a half years. Two extreme examples perhaps but they happen. Indeed one of the foremost reason we have the laws we currently have in Australia is because of various incidents that have occurred within our borders. The Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania and a spate of attacks with samurai swords in Victoria (probably stuff in the rest of Australia as well) are good examples.

Yet despite these laws there are still so many illegal weapons in the community. I know of one individual that has a number of unregisterd and illegal weapons for which he has made silencers and uses them for "sport". Now I doubt he will ever rob a bank but his sport includes taking pot shots at the local wildlife. Which is bad enough except since he is not a great shot he dosn't tend to kill many of them out right. He told me of one time that he took six shots at a wallaby without scoring a hit. I don't know how many animals he has managed to hit and left wounded in the bush.

These laws are often inacted as knee jerk reactions to events but they fail to deal appropriately with the events thats they are trying to control. For example the spate of incicdents involving Katanas and marchettes in Melbourne resulted in new laws to control swords and knives. Things is that the definition in the act decribes swords as having a hilt. Katanas don't have hilt and neither do marchettes. However, my wooden training swords are covered by the act since they have hilts. That means that I need a "reason" to own them (belong to a appropriate sporting club) and I am meant to have the equivilent of a gun safe to store them.

We deifinitely need good laws but I'm pretty sure that the laws we have are not up to the task.