Some idiots really should not have a gun or licence for it.

We didnt get his number, however got the number of the last vehicle which I'm sure was with him. I also have a good description of all 3 vehicles.
We have very close friends in the force and will take appropriate advice on what to do with the situation.This fool was also lucky one of us wasn't an off duty cop, that would have made him look a bit red in the face with the comment he made,which i'm sure was a big ego boost in front of his mates over the airwaves.

cheers

AS a licences gun owner ( Cat A & B ) I take the privilege and ownership VERY seriously ( would under line seriously 5 times ) With that said - i would NEVER threaten anyone like you had been threatened, and to do so is contrary to the licence issued by Police dept.

Clearly these idiots do not deserve to have the licence( if they do have one ) and SHOULD have been reported , if you didnt know which individual car made the threat then just record the number plate you did see - chances are he will also be licensed ( as most are in rural areas )and report him as being in the convoy of people that threatened you. if he is threatened with licence loss and loss of his rifles due to confiscation , im sure he will tell of the person who did make the threat.

In regards to the fast driving -- I live on a rural road which is approx 30 Km of dirt road - road is clearly zoned 100 from each end ( entrance ) as i travel this road 2 times a day ( to and from work ) i know this road VERY well - every bump , corner , pot hole - now i normally drive this road constantly at 80 KMH as a result - NEW people passing through ( GPS for some reason shows this is a short cut to Canberra ) i often get nasty looks / hand gestures when i pass people , whilst 20 KM UNDER the speed limit mind you and because i drive a raised Patrol with all bells and whistles , it would make my approach look faster than i am actually going

the reason i mention this is for the other side of the story - you may see me/us locals as an "Idiot" driver because i am able to negotiate the road under the speed limit yet you can not negotiate the same road as its new to you and your car would not be capable of handling the road at excess of 50 KMH

please remember this when travelling rural roads and a local wants to drive past you

Agreed.

Yep fully agree mate, there were many other comments i'd have liked to have made as the frustration he put me into, by threatening myself and family, however there was a gun mentioned, so had to keep cool this time. He obviously was no good with his hands. lol

cheers Unc

Maybe read it again, the bit about shooting his radiator is a dead give away me thinks :))

Yeah I was expecting something a little differant aswell. Not withstanding the validity of the content, the headline is a little misleading.

Sorry Tim...you got it wrong...Threating to shoot at ones vehicle is considered an offence where I live.
The point is this moron threatened to use his firearm illegally. If this moron had been half cut/drugged then owning a gun and threatening to use it illegally is a serious thing.
What would you have done? Chased him and told him he was a naughty boy.
Its morons like this that give the shooting fraternity a bad name as well as 4wd operators in state forests.

I still don't think the big issue is with guns as the headline lead me to believe it is.
Dont get me wrong.....he sounds like a complete moron as no one should threaten anyone (especially over a radio) and even more so with a gun!

BUT
It sounds more like some hot headed, gutless little turd made threats over a radio because he heard someone calling him names on the same radio?
He sounds to me the type of loud mouthed hero that would have threatened to use his car if he wasn't carrying a gun, which people are assuming he had and a licence to go with it. (Did anyone actually see a gun?)

With all the beat up on guns these days I think we need to be a bit careful how we publicise them and a headline like this didn't sound like good publicity to me......especially when the issue was with a loud mouth moron not a gun?

Maybe a headline like......"Some idiots shouldn't be allowed radios"?
or.........."Be careful what you say over the radio? (not suggesting uncle did anything wrong!)
or.........."Idiot makes serious threat over radio"?
or.........."Some idiots shouldn't own Nissan's or have a licence for them"?

For a minute I could see this turning into a gun beat up...........that's why I made the comment..........

I think the emphasis should have been on the idiot not the assumed gun.


Does that make it a little cleared?

Hairy - Unfortunately, gun and idiots have a nasty habit of attracting each other.
Why else do we get shot-up road signs, shot-up water tanks, shot-up polyethylene water piping, and even cattle shot?

You need to talk to some of my pastoral station mates to understand the anger they feel towards the gun-owning imbeciles who constantly, and repeatedly cause vast amounts of destructive, mindless damage to station property.

If they had their collective way, no gun owner or anyone carrying guns, would be allowed on their properties.

http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2011/08/22/3299141.htm

Cheers - Ron.

This is exactly the type of comment I expected a headline like this to attract.

Hairy
I totally agree with your post. Law abiding gun owners as a group are an easy target for people wanting to score points. Particularly by politicians wanting to infer that we can reduce gun crime by reducing legal fire arms. It's hard enough to own a rifle without people making us out to be red necks or whatever.
Yes there are idiots out there but don't tar everyone with the same brush.
Ahhhh got that off my chest....
Skippy

Hairy you have my vote also
Because he made a threat doesnt make him a "gun owner".

Maybe more accurate would be

"Some idiots really should not have a GU or licence for it."

You know he had a Patrol so at least its accurate.

Yes look dont get me wrong, I dont dislike shooters at all, but this tool would be the type that pulls up at every road sign and shoots holes in it, while he takes another sip out of his rum can. this bloke gives the fellows that ARE doing the right thing, a bad name.

brucehornet
I too am a hunter, and I hate DH's like that.
I hope they get done.
I do not want to be branded alongside idiots with rifles.

Always feel free to dob them in.
I would.

Cheers
Bucky

Yeah Bucky , look one of the guys in the convoy with us, is also a shooter and he too, had his wife and two daughters in his troopy with him. they were also very alarmed at the rather violent tone that came thru in this guys voice, not to mention the language, which my mrs chipped him on, however to no avail.


cheers Unc

And what's more, if you went BOO !
he wouold probably crap his pants

cheers mate you have mail.

unfortunatly a total waste of time. the OP cannot prove who he was talking too it could have been some one 20km away

Joe - I'm convinced at least half the population who own guns have no specific NEED for them.
Gun licences should be issued on a NEEDS basis, not a WANTS basis.

I used to be a shooter and gun owner, but my house burnt down due to an electrical fault, and all my weapons went with it.

That was 30 yrs ago this year, and after the fire - in which I lost 98% of my personal possessions - I examined my WANTS and NEEDS, and made a conscious decision not to re-arm.

I have never missed having a weapon since, and I can assure you I certainly never could justify a NEED for firearms in my soul-searching after the fire.

I have no problem with any responsible firearms owner having firearms when there is a demonstrated need. However, I do have problems with the amount of firearms in our society in the hands of complete bleep s. Add some alcohol, and you get bigger bleep s with guns.

Before anyone accuses me of being tree-hugging, tofu-eating, gun-hater - I can tell you, I've stared Viet Cong directly in the face, and spent time with my trigger finger on weapons that most Aussie civilians have never handled.

There are too many unnecessary guns in our society, and the last thing Australia needs is the American belief that a man isn't a real man unless he's packing a firearm.

Cheers - Ron.

I asume you would also agree that 4wds should also permited under a NEEDS basis as well.......not a WANT basis? After all , there are a lot of bleep s driving 4wds and a lot of accidents each year with them?
Whats wrong with shooting being a hobby, just like 4wding? As long as you are licenced the firearem registered and they are used responsibly?

Thanks Hairy well said.
Skip

Hairy - Well, the basics of the problems with taking up these hobbies, is that, because any idiot can go out and buy a 4WD, or a weapon - and not have to substantially prove to anyone in authority, that they ARE responsible owners of said 4WD's or weapons - we now have the problem of the smaller % of irresponsible members of each group, making it very hard for the larger %, who are responsible owners.

There needs to be more restrictions placed on the buyers in both groups, AFAIC, to make it better for the people who want to own either - which means those who understand and accept the serious responsibility, that comes from owning either item.
Simply put - too many bleep s with a propensity for consuming large amounts of alcohol, and possessing a need to show off (and combining the two) - are given virtually free rein to buy the weapon of their choice, be it 4WD or a firearm - or both. Owning either should be an earned privilege, IMO, not a right.

Cheers - Ron.

I reserve the right to own a gun if I WANT to. It is my right living in a free country. I don't think the problem is these idiots owning a gun. If you take the gun of them, they will find something else to use. These woujld be the same idiots the would rap a chain around a gate and pull it off it's hinges to get somewhere they shouldn't be. Or pull the long drop toilet down to burn for fire wood.
The problem is the penalties for being a bleep aren't harsh enough. They know in the bush like that there is nothing the cops can do.
Ron..why should we restrict the average person from owning a gun, 4wd, fishing rod, boat, ect. There are enough rules and regulation already. Make the penalties for the bleep s harsh and leave the honest people alone.


Josh

Josh - There's no such thing as a RIGHT to own a firearm in Australia. This is Australia, not America.
The politicians and judges who wrote up our Constitution over 111 years ago, did so, after carefully examining the American Constitution - and they very wisely decided to leave out the dopey parts - such as an unassailable, unalienable RIGHT to a firearm.

This American RIGHT to a firearm, has led to a nation that now possesses 100 times more weapons than any country in peacetime would ever need. It has led to more deaths by firearms than virtually any nation on earth.
It has led to America being the leader in mass murder by firearms. It means America is the leading Western country for dispute-settling via firearms.
It means that domestic violence involving a firearm is the major reason for the deaths of most American women, apart from road fatalities.

Your idea of increasing penalties for offences involving weapons is good. I'm all for it.
However, the idea of virtually anyone being able to obtain a weapon is the weak point.
Your system is reactive, not proactive. You're going to issue weapons to every bleep around - then lock them up when they misuse them.
Far better to seriously restrict the issue of weapons in the first place - then we'd be locking up less bleep s, and saving ourselves a fortune overall.

Cheers - Ron.

"It means that domestic violence involving a firearm is the major reason for the deaths of most American women, apart from road fatalities. "

With all due respect Ron, that is rubbish. You are saying that the two leading causes of death amongst American females are road fatalities and domestic violence involving a firearm.

Heart disease and cancer are far and away the major causes of death amongst American females and males for that matter.

Getting old but still relevant

Gday Ron,
I think you will find that in America, they have the right to CARRY a firearm, including handguns. We are suggesting a right to own one.....not walk down the street with a holster under your arm. And you cant as you suggest, just go in and buy any gun you like.....that's just crap. In WA you have to do a gun safety test.......apply for a licence for a particular weapon.........have it pass a safety test.......justify why you need a firearm........be a member of a club or have permission and reason to shoot on pastoral land which is of suitable size for that particular firearm. Then the types of firearms available are very restricted. You cant go in and buy a high calibre auto weapon like in America, so to compare us with them is completely ridiculous.
Secondly.......do you believe that taking away the privilege of owning a firearm will make all the criminals and dickheads hand in their illegal firearms? I don't!
I can understand people not likeing firearms and thats their choice but I can also understand people wanting the right to own one as long as it is used responsibly and legal.
You cant take away everything some dickhead can use dangerously......

Cheers

Gramps - My error, I meant to put, "apart from disease and road fatalities". It's a proven fact that a gun owner is more likely to resort to the use of firearm to settle a major domestic dispute, or a major interpersonal conflict. This is why police immediately remove registered firearms from anyone who threatens their partner with violence in a domestic dispute.

Hairy - No, the 2nd Amendment to the American constitution states that an American citizen has a "right to carry (own) and bear arms". This is not the same as the "RIGHT TO CARRY" laws, otherwise known as "Concealed Carry".
The CC laws in the U.S. were enacted in a large number of American states as a knee-jerk reaction to the Lubys Cafeteria massacre in 1991.

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

I know that comparing the U.S. to Australia is not a good comparison, but I'm concerned at the high number of Australian firearms owners, who think the NRA is an unassailably correct organisation, and who support everything the NRA represents and desires.
The NRA wants to see every person in the world armed with as many firearms as that person considers necessary for "personal protection", whether that number is one or ten firearms. This is stated NRA policy.
The NRA is little more than a vocal mouthpiece for the firearms manufacturers, backed by big money, and they use fear of armed criminals or Govt control, as a highly potent piece of propaganda.

I know full well that nothing will stop criminals from obtaining firearms if they are totally determined to acquire one. What does reduce illegal firearms crimes is strict control on the number of firearms, strict controls and intensive scrutiny of firearms owners, and intensive education of firearm owners on safe gun use and storage - in conjunction with longer jail periods for illegal gun possession & use.

AFAIC, anyone caught with an unregistered weapon, particularly a handgun, should be charged with premeditated attempted murder. If they're carrying an illegal weapon, they have only one aim in mind - to murder someone.

However, the majority of gun crimes are carried out using stolen, registered weapons. This alone shows that sizeable numbers of gun owners have a cavalier attitude to gun storage, handling, and security.

You're taking my argument for increased gun control as an argument "that takes away the privilege of owning a firearm". This is twisting my argument into something that I'm not saying.
What I am saying, is that you currently recognise the need for, and are happy to comply with, laws and regulations that require you to reach certain standards and requirements before you can:

1. Operate dangerous machinery, such as cranes, forklifts, heavy equipment, etc ...
2. Install high voltage electrical equipment ...
3. Build a substantial dwelling ...
4. Install substantial water and drainage facilities ...
5. Engineer major structures such as bridges, dams, and other large infrastructure items where danger is present without proper qualifications ...

.. so why shouldn't firearms be restricted to those who have proven themselves capable of the abilities needed - and possess stability of personal characteristics - to safely handle, operate, and properly secure and store those firearms?

After all, doesn't the constant repetitive argument of gun lovers iterate, that a firearm must be merely regarded, as a "useful tool"? .. [:-)

Cheers - Ron.

Mate , when a bloke carrying swags and dog cages on his ute, threatens you with a firearm verbally over the air waves, and you have your family and young baby in the car with you, you do not need to be Einstein to work out that there is a good chance he may have a gun and I am not in a situation at that time with a wife nearly in tears sitting beside me, to question him.He sounded like he wasn't carrying a surfboard anyway.

Yes I may have made a mistake by calling him and idiot, i'll admit to that,I may be cautious next time, but I have had people say that to me in the past as well and I have just shrugged it off so what. but to threaten to shoot up someone's property??? COME ON MATEY WAKE UP TO YOURSELF.

Well,well, Uncle, If what I said can elicit a personal attack from you, folks may be
entitled to reassess what this post is really about....
I, however, will take the advice of Sam Johnson ,below, & remain silent....you will
not hear from me again....I've woken up..:)))))..cheers......oldbaz.

This post has been read by the moderation team and has been moderated due to a breach of The Trolling Rule .

Forum Moderation Team

"thinks that it is ok to threaten someone or their property witha firearm "

He didnt threaten them with a firearm, he SAID he was going to.

There was a guy who lived just up the road from us a couple of months ago, who SAID he was going to shoot up his mrs's property and burn the house as she had left him for another bloke.

guess what the law did? He now has no more high powered firearms in his possession.

And how many of the people shooting up the suburbs even have a gun license ?
Can disarm everybody and there will still be firearms.
Having been involved in a fight with four blokes on PCP, there was four of us, three of us went to hospital, my big mate (6'3" 18 stone) had 18 stab wounds, another his ear and end of his nose cut off and the third had his intestines exposed and all his hands sliced like bacon trying to defend himself.
I bashed the knifers head many, many times into a bitumen carpark until stuff was running out his forehead, he just jumped up and took off after others like a jack-in-a-box (I was 6"3" and 16 stone at the time).
It took a dozen or so coppers and the hotel bouncers (one bouncer who was also stabbed 6 times) to get him after nearly half an hour of fighting before they got there and then he kicked all the rear windows out of the cop car while cuffed. Bullets do not stop people on that stuff as the US coppers know.
Older people who have never had any interaction with drugs like speed, ice, meth, steroids, should know that there are others out there driving around on this stuff and I would recommend just sticking to yourself and keeping your vocal challenge in the car to yourself unless you have a deathwish, on your own and dont mind losing your life.
He did not need a gun, they can just ram you with the car, they just dont care about consequences of their rage.
Thats also not to mention people who are just plain loopy and agro without the drugs in the community.

Fisho64...read the statement.

He said that he was going to the next camping spot where he was going to shoot the radiator and slash his tyres...what part dont you understand...he threatened the author with violence...

So if i met you in the street, was off my head from grog/drugs and said I am going to shoot you...you would not consider that a threat?

For gods sake man.

for gods sake man-listen to what Im sayin

"So if i met you in the street, was off my head from grog/drugs and said I am going to shoot you...you would not consider that a threat? "

yes I would of course. But if I couldnt see a gun then I wouldnt run around squeeling that he was an irresponsible gun owner.

4WDer's on here whimper about being tarred with the same brush as enviro vandals. So what is the connection between this idiot and responsible legal gun owners? YOU DONT EVEN KNOW IF HE IS A GUN OWNER yet people are commenting that private citizens shouldnt have firearms because of this?