Man shot dead, two counter-terrorism officers stabbed outside... police station (Australia)

One of the law enforcement officers is in a stable condition with non life threatening injuries. The other is listed as critical but stable.

Let’s see how this plays out, but I suspect if the leftists have their way, they will conclude the proper response would be to stop cancelling passports.

Nope, guns were the real killer here. It was not enough to disarm the population. If cops didn’t have guns, the innocent youth that had his Mohammed (piss be upon his name)given rights to slash the officers, might be alive today.

/////////ssssssssss

They got Amish folks in Australia too?

Not again. Why does almost every discussion of Australia on Freerepublic wind up including the "Australian banned guns" or "Australians are disarmed" myths?

I'm an Australian gun owner. One of over a million citizens legally owning millions of guns.

Two threads down we have this nugget:

ISIS Spokesman Calls on Muslims in the West to Kill Americans, Europeans, Australians, Canadians

Prayers for those involved and their families. Such a shame that this horrible faux religion is committing these atrocities all over the world. Hopefully someday the world will have the honest conversation about these monsters and what remedies need doing.

Reports suggest the officer who was originally listed as in critical condition has had his condition upgraded to serious but stable.

“They got Amish folks in Australia too?”

Yes, especially Lebanese. Here they are rioting in Australia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC0GqNL40h4

Because:

In Australia, civilians are not allowed to possess automatic and semi-automatic firearms, self-loading and pump action shotguns, handguns with a calibre in excess of .38in with only narrow exemptions, semi-automatic handguns with a barrel length less than 120mm, and revolvers with a barrel length less than 100mm

and

Applicants for a gun owner’s licence in Australia are required to prove genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example, hunting, target shooting, collection, pest control, and narrow occupational uses.
In law, personal protection is not a genuine reason

From http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia

You’ve given up a lot of your rights and American gun owners just like to point out that you got nothing in return.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. —Benjamin Franklin

That’s encouraging. I hope he pulls through!

Don't believe all the poorly researched crap people put on the internet - especially when it has a political agenda.

In Australia, civilians are not allowed to possess automatic and semi-automatic firearms, self-loading and pump action shotgun

It's amazing that I do legally possess such a weapon then, isn't it?

The information that has been put on the internet is, as I say, poorly researched and often has a distinct political bias. The Gunpolicy website is an anti-gun website that enjoys trying to hold up Australia to Americans as their example of how gun control works wonderfully well. For that reason they exaggerate the effects of Australia's gun laws - because they'd rather try and suggest that the low rate of gun crime in Australia is a result of no guns, rather than acknowledge that Australia has both a low rate of gun crime, and significant numbers (millions) of firearms still in private hands.

Australian civilians can own semi-automatic firearms, self-loading and pump action shotguns. I own a semi-automatic rifle myself.

handguns with a calibre in excess of .38in with only narrow exemptions, semi-automatic handguns with a barrel length less than 120mm, and revolvers with a barrel length less than 100mm

That bit is misleading, I think accidentally - it suggests the barrel lengths given are maximums when they are actually minimums - which is why my hand gun is a .38 semi-automatic with a barrel length of 127mm. It matches the legal requirements so I can own it on a basic handgun licence. The exemptions, however, aren't particularly narrow.

Applicants for a gun owner’s licence in Australia are required to prove genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example, hunting, target shooting, collection, pest control, and narrow occupational uses.

"I am a sporting shooter who goes hunting once a year." "I am a member of a pistol club." Yes, you have to put a reason on the form, and if you are getting a high level licence, you generally have to meet the local firearms officer to explain your reasons. Unless you're an idiot, and say something stupid ("I want to shoot my neighbours dog because it fouls my lawn") it's not that difficult.

In law, personal protection is not a genuine reason

By itself, it isn't. Which is why you wouldn't give that as your reason on the form or in the interview. But if you have a firearm, it can be used for self defence or defence of another person in a situation where a reasonable person would believe somebody was in danger of death or serious injury. Self defence law in Australia is derived from English Common Law, not statute law and so it's not as clearly stated in as simple a form as it could be - but you can use force to protect yourself as long as it is reasonable given the threat, and use of a deadly weapon is reasonable if there is a threat to life or of serious injury.

Making sure I understood the law was part of that interview I mentioned. Actually it was most of it.

from wikiipedia:
Category D: Self loading centrefire rifles, pump-action or self loading shotguns holding more than 5 rounds. Functional Category D firearms are restricted to government agencies and a few occupational shooters. Collectors may own deactivated Category D firearms.

Apparently you’ve convinced folks you are an “occupational shooter”.

Gun laws are always senseless and always very prone to gaming the system. According to wiki you can have a .357 Sig but not a .40S&W, that is just silly. It’s nice that you had a”buyback” NY, CT and Canada have had flat out confiscations of newly prohibited gun types. It appears that your laws a roughly comparable to our most restrictive states. 10 round magazine limit, lots of paperwork, lots of restrictions on types, I’m assuming no evil black rifles...

Bottom line, the answer to your question is that American gun owners, depending on which state we live in have a LOT more rights than you do and we are trying quite desperately to keep them. Where I live I can get a semi auto rifle (including ones with a military appearance), pistol or shotgun or any caliber with no paperwork other than a check to make sure I’m not a felon, I can store them in my home or my car any way I like, I can carry them openly in public, I can acquire a permit to carry them concealed. All without having to explain to the government why I want to. We would like to keep our rights and not have them abrogated for no reason other than some politicians totalitarian fantasies. That is why we comment on your gun control laws not having had any honest positive effect on your safety.

Apparently you’ve convinced folks you are an “occupational shooter”.

No, I haven't. Seriously, don't believe it just because you read it on the internet.

Most of what is on the net about Australian gun laws seems to be based around a draft agreement signed in 1996 which was intended at the time it was signed to be much more restrictive than the laws wound up being in practice once the laws went through the various state parliaments. In particular a lot more exemptions were put in place than were in the original agreement, and the categorisation of firearms was a lot more fluid than the agreement definitions would indicate.

I don't have a Category D licence - I have a Category C licence (I did have a D licence at one point and getting that was genuinely difficult). This allows me to own the firearms I want to own. My most powerful rifle (a L1A1 SLR of the same basic type as I used in military service) is C Category in my state - in some parts of Australia, it has been classified as D Category.

Gun laws are always senseless and always very prone to gaming the system. According to wiki you can have a .357 Sig but not a .40S&W, that is just silly. It’s nice that you had a”buyback” NY, CT and Canada have had flat out confiscations of newly prohibited gun types. It appears that your laws a roughly comparable to our most restrictive states. 10 round magazine limit, lots of paperwork, lots of restrictions on types, I’m assuming no evil black rifles.

That's what my main gun looks like.

Some of the rules on handguns are screwed up, but again, they're not as bad as they are painted. I'm going to give you a link to my local gun shop's webpage concerning the Glocks it sells:

Note the division into two categories - "Target Glocks" and "Security Glocks". That's quite deliberate because of the way the laws operate in this state. People with security licences have access to a larger range of firearms than the general public - the easiest way for somebody with no other avenue to get a handgun licence in this state is to be a 'target shooter' because target guns are less restricted.

Have a look at what is included in "Target Glocks" though - the Glock 24 Full Size in .40S&W as one example.

The range available with a security licence is much larger - but there's plenty in the range a 'normal person' can get.

That is why we comment on your gun control laws not having had any honest positive effect on your safety.

Yes, and people can do that without claiming they are worse than they are by saying things like "guns are banned in Australia" or "Australians are disarmed." I think that would actually make the point better - by making it clear that things don't need to get to that level for rights to be being infringed.