Do you think that, one day, the government will ban cameras?

[Guest]

I'll leave the gun thing to others....If some thing is written please let it be fact...

Shigure where do you get your information from???This is what you wrote..{Australia banned a lot of firearms after the Port Arthur massacre and the crime rate jumped}This not true...

Mate I am an Aussie from Perth, family are cops in the WA Police Force(CIB), I use to work in Close Protection across the country and dealt with the police a lot and made a lot of police friends around the country ... what the public is handed is watered down BS of the true rate of crime.

Before in OZ you could buy a AR-10 until the PAM and then they were banned along with pump action shotguns, semi-rifles etc, a lot of people that owned the now banned weapons needed to hand them in and the years after the PAM the crime rates in Home invasion went up and still is going up well was when I left Perth in 2003, reason is because a lot of the criminals now figured that they had less of a chance of getting shot!


This from the Australian Institute of Criminology.

Trends in violent crime

• Samantha Bricknell
• Trends and issues in crime and criminal justice, no. 359
• ISBN 978 1 921185 84 7
• Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, June 2008

The public's perception is that violence is increasing, but trends in violent crime reported to police since the early 1990s reveal a mixed story. Homicide has decreased by nine percent since 1990 and armed robbery by one-third since 2001, but recorded assaults and sexual assaults have both increased steadily in the past 10 years by over 40 percent and 20 percent respectively. The rate of aggravated assault appears to have contributed to the marked rise in recorded assault, and for both assault and sexual assault the rate of increase was greater for children aged under 15 years, with increases almost double that of the older age group. Neither population changes among young adult males nor rates of offending seem to explain the trends in recorded violent crime, and indicators of change in reporting to police provide only a partial explanation. Based on self-reported victimisation and reporting to police, it would seem increased reporting of assault is somewhat responsible for the rise in recorded assault rates against adult victims. However, victimisation survey data suggest there has been little change in rates of sexual assault, although reporting to police by women seems to have increased. Victimisation survey data also do not illuminate the most significant recorded increase in violent victimisation, against children, as they are collected less frequently and only apply to those aged at least over 15 years. The paper speculates that the rise could be due to better public understanding of child protection issues and increased reporting due to public awareness of what constitutes physical and sexual assault - especially within the family - but this requires further investigation to examine how many recorded violent crimes against children relate to current and/or past events and of the relationship to the offender.
Judy Putt


General Manager, Research

It's is a funny topic, because every Law site on the matter states a different thing.

 

[WhiteLight]

I had not heard of this. They tie what things cost to whether you have been scanned into the system? That is outrageous.

A couple of links
Property News India and Featured Real Estate Stories » Aadhar card linked to gas cylinders from Feb 15

Aadhar cards must, to avail subsidy on Gas cylinders!

More if you like
https://www.google.co.in/search?q=g...:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb

Check this out... in a mainstream newspaper:

(QUOTE]The Aadhar Card - What are the real intentions of the UPA ? Berges Malu | Monday, February 18, 2013

The UPA government operates by stealth these days, everything from passing IT laws (remember how the IT Law was passed without any opposition) to executing terrorists, all committed through stealth. It seems the government either doesn’t seem to have the guts or the wherewithal to be bold about the decisions it would like to take. The latest stealth move by the current government, is to demand citizens have an Aadhar card for such regular things as buying cooking gas to demanding information under the Right to Information (RTI) act. This shows how the current government would like to turn India from a liberal democracy into a closely monitored police state cause let’s be honest, this government has no intention of taking care of the aam aadmi, if it did, it wouldn’t let lakhs of farmers commit suicide around the nation, displace thousands in the commonwealth games and let the economy slow down thus stifling the creation of new jobs for youth coming out of school every year. The UID is simply a method of surveillance, surveillance not to prevent rapes, thefts and murders, which this government has no intention of preventing, but instead to make the life of the common man a bigger struggle than it already is. Article continues below the advertisement... The Aadhar card was introduced by the PM along with Nandan Nilekani and his ‘dream team’ (which comprised of mostly NRI’s- an issue for another debate) as an optional card that wasn’t meant to be mandatory for all citizens. What started out as a simple identity card that would be provided to all Indians, turned into a card that would benefit the poor and now into a card mandatory for receiving all/any benefits from the government. Recently it was reported schools in Thane started demanding that parents provide an Aadhar card number or admission wouldn’t be granted to their children and in a separate move the chief secretary of Maharashtra JK Banthia sent out a circular saying one should provide their Aadhar card number to demand information under RTI. This deception by the government is unsurprising what with the massive scams we hear about daily. The writing on the wall is thus clear, the government is slowly using stealth means to make the Aadhar card mandatory for all citizens. And oddly enough, the Aadhar card by itself is illegal, as Parliament has refused to pass a bill that was aimed to legalize the Aadhar card, and the government is pumping large amounts of money into the scheme, according to some estimates nearly Rs 150,000 crore. I won’t be surprised, if a scam turns up out of this too. Besides there’s no clue where all that bio-metric data that the government plans on collecting may land up, as The Hindu recently had a story that mentioned that much of the data is being collected and collated by an American company that under US law would have to turn over data to the US government if asked for it. Soon power will not be measure in how much money you acquire or who you know but the anonymity you possess. "You don't have a digital footprint... people with that kind of anonymity in this age, that's true power" – Logan Pierce - Person of Interest[/QUOTE]

Link - http://www.dnaindia.com/blogs/post_the-aadhar-card-what-are-the-real-intentions-of-the-upa-_1801080

 

[TedG954]

I don't know if the following reports are true, false, or exaggerated, but they are from the media.


The facts (to quote the Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia) are as follows:

• Between July 1 1997 and 30 June 1999 nine in ten offenders of firearm-related homicide were unlicensed firearm owners.

• Raw data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) reveals that while suicide by firearms is continuing to decrease from a high in the 1980s, suicide by hanging steadily increased throughout the 1990s and increased for three consecutive years after the 1996 buy-back.

• In the year 2002/2003, over 85% of firearms used to commit murder were unregistered. Recent legislation introduced by all states further strengthened controls on access to legitimate handguns by sporting shooters.

• The AIC’s ‘Homicide in Australia: 2006-07 National Homicide Monitoring Program annual report’ stated that 93 per cent of firearms involved in homicides had never been registered and were used by unlicensed individuals.

Gun control is a myth, or rather a mountain of myths sustained by campaigning elites in secure buildings with armed bodyguards: the myth that if law-abiding citizens hand their guns over to the big government to burn, then we will enter a new peace; the myth that if we feel that we are gun controllers, then we are humanitarian citizens even when statistics undermine our self-praising image; and the myth that punishing thousands of farmers and sporting shooters, for the crimes of others, will bring healing. But we (meaning anti-gun Australians) were (and are) wrong.


This is from the Chicago Tribune.

Australia's gun control: Success or failure?


January 18, 2013|Steve Chapman

After a mass shooting in 1996, Australia enacted a sweeping package of gun restrictions far more ambitious than anything plausible here -- including a total ban on semiautomatic weapons, a mandatory gun buyback, and strict limits on who could own a firearm. John Howard, who was prime minister at the time, wrote the other day that his country "is safer today as a consequence of gun control."

You would think such dramatic new restrictions were bound to help. But the striking thing is how little effect they had on gun deaths.

It's true the homicide rate fell after the law took effect -- but it had also been falling long before that. A study published by the liberal Brookings Institution noted that the decline didn't accelerate after 1996. Same for lethal accidents. Suicide didn't budge. At most, they conclude "there may" -- may -- "have been a modest effect on homicide rates."

Researchers at the University of Melbourne, however, found no such improvement as a result of the new system. "There is little evidence to suggest that it had any significant effects on firearm homicides or suicides," they wrote.
Howard says the country has had no mass shootings since 1996. But mass shootings are such a tiny share of all homicides that any connection may be purely a matter of chance.
We learned from the 1994 assault weapons ban that modest gun control measures don't work. What Australia suggests is that even if radical ones could be passed, they wouldn't work either.

This is from Google...

Because of the changes made to the gun control laws in 1997, gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government more than $500 million dollars. And now the results are in. After 12 months of banning firearms:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent;
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent).
Hot Burglaries are up 300% (where the intruders come in while you are home and knows that you are home).
In the state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300 percent.

​

Figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms (but increased drastically in the past 12 months). There has been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly. Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been served after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns." Their response has been to "wait longer".Their suggestion to citizens has been to build a fortified room in their house, so that when a burglar enters their home, the homeowners may lock themselves in that room while the burglar takes what he wants from their house.At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said, "self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm."It's time to state it plainly: Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws only affect the law-abiding citizens. Preventing law-abiding citizens from carrying firearms for self-defense does not end violent crime - it just makes victims more vulnerable! Society benefits from ordinary people who accept the responsibilities of firearm ownership - not from gun-control laws.

 

[Guest]

I know in my state of Western Australia, home invasions when though the roof and most happened when people were home and a lot of people were assaulted with weapons ... At the moment every day on the east coast (NSW, QLD & Vic) there are drive by shootings and shooting deaths nearly every second day, you just have to read Yahoo 7 news to see.

 

[silvertip]

If the Feds do come to my door asking for my cameras I will give them my Canon's; I will keep my Nikon's.

Kent

 

[Don Kuykendall_RIP]

If the Feds do come to my door asking for my cameras I will give them my Canon's; I will keep my Nikon's.

Kent

Good idea. I keep a throwaway canon just for these situations. I think I even have an old Kodak.

 

[AC016]

The Federal government up here initiated a long-gun registry years ago, but recently scrapped it. The idea was to keep track of all the long-guns in the country and to assist police in knowing if they were going into a volatile call. Before the registry, you could buy as many firearms as you wanted with your license an no one would really be the wiser. The registry did absolutely nothing to prevent major incidences of gun crime: Mayerthorpe (4 RCMP officers killed in an ambush), Dawson College shooting (1 person killed and numerous others injured). The long-gun registry came about as a result of the Polytechnique shooting, in which 14 women were singled out and shot. But as i look back on that day from todays standpoint, there is nothing in place to prevent another Polytechnique from happening, registry or no registry. Mr. Lepin who shot those 14 women, had serious mental health issues. This is where the real problem lies: people with mentail health issues who do not receive the care they need or who are unwilling to help themselves. That being said, i don't feel that someone needs an AR-15 to protect their home, but i am all for protecting your home with a gun. My current provincial government, if i can actually call them that, has decided to start (it's a long ways off) their own long-gun registry. However, if you study the political climate surrounding this, you will see that it is a political move and nothing else. It is only but a false sense of security. The thought and paranoia of the governemnt taking away all guns in the USA is alarming itself. I am not sure how the Feds would accomplish this without starting a civil war. If it actually came to that point, one would hope the military (atleast not in it's entirty) would not be acccomplices in surpressing civil liberties. As a bit of a tangent, i support my troops 100% in their efforts over in Afghanistan. However, by no means have they given me the capacity to come on this forum and have this discussion. I was able to freely converse over the internet long before Afghanistan or Iraq. I don't even see the correlation between the two wars and our ability to freely converse over the internet. One has nothing to do with the other(s). I don't even think any of the troops coming home would be so arrogant as to suggest that thinking either. Though, i am sure they would suggest that my government should support them more on their return home.