For those unfamiliar, an AVO is like a restraining order. The headline for this reads - "She had AVO, he had gun..." never can they bring themselves to say, oh I don't know, he had a gun and she isn't allowed to carry one, no matter the threat. No, that's far too much for the gun-fearing morons that lord over us. On the one hand they wax lyrical about women's rights and whatever else, but that supposed right never, ever extends to the right of a woman to carry a damn gun herself. Meanwhile, the usual buffoons have started their usual caterwauling for more gun control.SMH - Police investigating the murder of a woman gunned down by her estranged husband will investigate how he got hold of a gun when an apprehended violence order (AVO) had been taken out against him. Just after 4pm yesterday, John Kudrytch, 39, walked into the BP service station on the Hume Highway at Casula and shot his 29-year-old ex-wife, Melissa Cook, in the chest. She died in Liverpool Hospital.
If you didn't figure it out already, she's wailing for more laws banning guns, in other words, more nanny state involvement. You see she firmly believes that with strict gun-control this fellow would not have shot and killed his wife. What this idiot and the idiots in the media won't tell you is that the fellow is already banned from carrying a loaded weapon and discharging it into an innocent person, well that worked out real swell didn't it.......Greens MP Lee Rhiannon called for Police Minister Tony Kelly to investigate why Kudrytch had access to a gun in spite of the AVO. "NSW has weak gun laws, this has been tragically revealed by the murder-suicide in south-west Sydney," Ms Rhiannon told reporters. "The tragedy of the whole issue is that it takes mass shootings or murder-suicides to push politicians to change the law."
While you're braying angrily there Lee, perhaps you might want to consider the following before you yearn for more useless laws.
But, but, but she had an AVO, oh my godless, somebody call their local politician! Good grief! How did the fellow have access to a knife? This is unacceptable. We need to pass some sort of law people, oh my godless, what will it take before the government will bloody do something!Daily Telegraph [Nov 2007] - AN abused woman was stalked by her violent former partner for months before he finally stabbed her in front of her 10-year-old son this week, friends said. Police revealed the boy valiantly tried to intervene as Anita Mercael, 32, was repeatedly stabbed as they arrived at their Fairfield unit on Wednesday. ......"He couldn't accept she left. He was always harassing her. She had an apprehended violence order [AVO]," a colleague, who did not wish to be named, said.
You see, by her own stupid logic, we ought to ban the carrying of knives.... no wait, it's already banned, so is stabbing and the AVO was supposed to protect her, well that worked out real swell too didn't it.
The tragedy of the whole issue is that no matter how many victims are killed or injured by criminals with guns and other weapons when we have strict laws banning all of them, blasted idiots like this will never get it through their thick skulls that it's not the amount of laws that will make a difference. The laws only ensure that the law-abiding remain defenseless.
Just today, the victim of violent, Muslim gang-rapists in Sydney found out that their sentences had been reduced, even after they showed no remorse or admitted guilt in their crimes. If that girl or any woman reading the above wanted to carry a weapon now to protect themselves given that the laws and the justice system failed these women in every way possible, there will be so few in politics and in the public who would support them.
I accept that allowing the law-abiding guns to protect themselves is not going to mean an end to all crime or something, you see for us to win against the criminals we need both the will and the means. No point giving us the means if we won't muster the will. I think it's safe and sad to say that enough of us won't muster the will to defend ourselves. Having said this, it's still not fair to deny the means to those who have the will. But as it stands those who have the will are denied the means, there's no fair-go in that.
The very fact that the laws we passed cannot remove all illegal guns off our streets and prevent 100% of crime involving guns and other weapons, makes them stupid and useless. If they pass laws preventing us from defending ourselves with weapons, they must be able to prevent all attacks upon us with those very weapons, all the time, anything short of that and it's time to junk the stupid laws.