Sick People in this world.

[JC]

Originally Posted by flappist

Just wondering? Do you consider the Olympic Games a sporting event in that the majority of events are based on military skills, most with weapons.......

Covered in post #39 - sometimes it pays to read everything before making a point that was already made....

[Maka]

Mate, is this madman sick? hell yes, but imo he is also a delusional, bloodthirsty, coldblooded ^%$ #*&^ that knew what he was doing! 6000 rounds & $20,000 outlay proves he was on a mission. Did he undertake training before he went on his barbaric spree? Was Norway's Brehvic sick also? Same as above.

In the States the anti gun lobby have a new pin up boy but i'm sure things will stay the same imo.They just aint got the money to take on the NRA.

As for this debate about pro & anti gun ownership i will say this- a better solution needs finding and the sooner the better. I dont think responsible owners should be punished for the actions of others but the safety & security of the community in this day & age is absolutley paramount - dont we all agree?

May God bless the victims, may they rest in peace. God bless USA & God bless Australia.

cheers,Maka

[JC]

Originally Posted by Maka

Mate, is this madman sick? hell yes, but imo he is also a delusional, bloodthirsty, coldblooded ^%$ #*&^ that knew what he was doing! 6000 rounds & $20,000 outlay proves he was on a mission. Did he undertake training before he went on his barbaric spree? Was Norway's Brehvic sick also? Same as above.

In the States the anti gun lobby have a new pin up boy but i'm sure things will stay the same imo.They just aint got the money to take on the NRA.

As for this debate about pro & anti gun ownership i will say this- a better solution needs finding and the sooner the better. I dont think responsible owners should be punished for the actions of others but the safety & security of the community in this day & age is absolutley paramount - dont we all agree?

May God bless the victims, may they rest in peace. God bless USA & God bless Australia.

cheers,Maka

Well said, and I'm sure we all agree with your sentiments.

[irish2]

Originally Posted by piggsy

No they haven't slowed down,when was the last massacre in Australia ? It's the semi autos they need to get rid of . 300 isn't much ok then.

So when was the last gun massacre in Australia before Bryant?

[karj]

Originally Posted by irish2

So when was the last gun massacre in Australia before Bryant?

Seriously?

How about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_mass_murders

• Cullin-La-Ringo massacre - Horatio Wills and his traveling party were killed by Aborigines at Cullin-La-Ringo Station in Queensland in 1860; police, native police and civilians killed 60 to 70 Aborigines in response.
• George David Silva murdered six members of the Ching family at Alligator Creek near Mackay, Queensland in 1911.
• Coniston massacre - Over 50 Aboriginal people were killed in the last Aboriginal massacre in 1928. The motive was revenge for the killing of dingo hunter Frederick Brooks.
• Clifford Bartholomew massacre - A man shot dead ten members of his family in Hope Forest near Adelaide, September 1971.
• Milperra massacre - Two biker gangs, the Comanchero and the Bandidos, engaged in a shoot-out in a hotel car park, killing 7 people in 1984, including a bystander. Only one defendant was acquitted on the murder charges.
• Joseph Schwab - 1987, Schwab shot dead 5 people in and around the Kimberley region in Western Australia before being shot dead by police. [1]
• Hoddle Street massacre - Armed with two rifles and a shotgun, Julian Knight shot 7 people dead and wounded another 19 in 1987 before surrendering to authorities.
• Queen Street massacre - Armed with a sawn-off rifle, Frank Vitkovic roamed the Australia Post building killing 8 and wounding 5, also in 1987. When the weapon was finally wrestled from him, he committed suicide by jumping out of a nearby window.
• Surry Hills massacre - Paul Anthony Evers killed 5 people with a 12-gauge shotgun at a public housing precinct in Surry Hills in 1990 before surrendering to police. [2]
• Strathfield massacre - In 1991 Wade Frankum killed 7 people and wounded 6 others with a large knife and an SKS before turning the gun on himself when he realised he could not escape.
• Central Coast Massacre - Malcolm Baker killed 6 people and injured another with a shotgun in 1992 before being arrested by police.
• Port Arthur massacre - In 1996, armed with two semi-automatic rifles, Martin Bryant killed 35 people around Port Arthur and wounded 21 before being caught by police the next day following an overnight siege.
• Childers Palace Fire - In June 2000, drifter and con-artist Robert Long started a fire at the Childers Palace backpackers hostel that killed 15 people.

So... gun massacres in 71, 84, 3 in 87, 90, 91, 92 and then Pt Arthur in 96. One massacre since 96 and that was a deliberately lit fire.

And all of the Indigenous Australians massacred following white settlement. Too much to paste: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...us_Australians

[irish2]

I'm glad you brought up the Milperra massacre, a gunfight between outlaw bikies, yet there is rarely a day goes past without something or someone being shot up by bikies in south east Queensland. Obvious the gun laws worked well there.

[xtremerus]

Originally Posted by JC

The only problem with the spanner analogy is that a hand gun that holds 9 rounds can hit 9 targets in 9 trigger presses - let's say 4 or 5 seconds. Let's say 50% are kill shots, so that's 4 or 5 dead, 5 or 4 injured at close range in under 5 seconds. To hit that many people with one spanner and inflict similar damage takes a lot longer, and after the first few blows (unlikely to be fatal, but let's say one lands hard enough on the head, so there's one death in 15 or 20 seconds), the person wielding the spanner is likely to be overpowered by the crowd.

So while guns are not responsible for murder per se, they are responsible for "fast murder", and so to me, the ease with which a gun kills is why people choose to use them, and let's face it, they are designed only for one thing - to kill. You may say you can use them for sport, but gun shooting is not a sport - and I don't care it's in the olympics - they are based on military events anyway. Gun shooting is practice to kill. Whether that is people or animals, it is still killing, right or wrong.

A spanner's primary purpose on the other hand is to build, or repair things - so much the opposite end of the spectrum to guns it's not funny.

If I could, I would destroy all guns - come up with a really good, practical and necessary reason for a gun, and I may change my mind. But often the argument for a gun is to protect oneself from another with a gun. Take the guns away, and what is the need? Keep in mind we don't need to shoot our food any more - abattoirs take care of the killing process for us. If you want to shoot something for sport, take up xbox or PS3 (some of the games are realistic enough).

So you think Olympic Air Pistol is a training ground for killing.
What are you on?

[supershifty]

Originally Posted by gtxb67

how many people are killed by guns compared to cars in australia
how many people are maimed or just injured by guns compared to cars in australia
how many people are kept awake at night due to gun fire compared to hoons in australia
how many bullet holes are in signs or other things compared to status lines on the road in australia

the rules we have for guns are good in my opinion - not perfect for either side, but i find it weird that car enthusiasts who complain about the way us easy targets are treated, then jump in to put down another easy target just because they don't have an interest in the activity

gtxb67, I'll weigh in gently to this debate. I state that I'm all for gun ownership - and I have some of various types. For the anti-gun members on the forum - I've been sane for the past 45 years, and plan to be so for a while yet! Your points relate to cars vs guns - not everybody has a gun, most people have access to a car. Far more idiots have access to cars than guns.

Just my cents worth, but I do hear what you're saying.

Cheers!

[karj]

Originally Posted by irish2

I'm glad you brought up the Milperra massacre, a gunfight between outlaw bikies, yet there is rarely a day goes past without something or someone being shot up by bikies in south east Queensland. Obvious the gun laws worked well there.

Yes. We all know that outlaw bikie gangs are a problem. That is not some great revelation, nor is it a valid argument against gun restriction laws.

Point is this:

7 gun massacres in the 12 years prior to Pt Arthur... 0 gun massacres in the 16 years following Pt Arthur and the tightening of the gun laws.

Inevitably we will have another gun massacre at some point, but tightening the gun laws has clearly been effective in decreasing the rate of gun massacres.

Your position that 'gun crime didn't slow down in Australia when tighter laws were imposed' is simply not backed by the evidence.

[irish2]

Originally Posted by karj

Yes. We all know that outlaw bikie gangs are a problem. That is not some great revelation, nor is it a valid argument against gun restriction laws.

Point is this:

7 gun massacres in the 12 years prior to Pt Arthur... 0 gun massacres in the 16 years following Pt Arthur and the tightening of the gun laws.

Inevitably we will have another gun massacre at some point, but tightening the gun laws has clearly been effective in decreasing the rate of gun massacres.

Your position that 'gun crime didn't slow down in Australia when tighter laws were imposed' is simply not backed by the evidence.

Maybe if your only measure for gun crime are massacres.

[karj]

Originally Posted by irish2

Maybe if your only measure for gun crime are massacres.

Are you kidding me?

This was your argument originally, and then it backfired when I pointed out that gun massacres had decreased.

This whole thread is about gun massacres.

[irish2]

Armed Robbery
In the context of a rising armed robbery rate it was hoped that regulating firearms would restrict access to them by those committing robbery, many of whom commit the offence without much planning or preparation. But Fig 3 shows a significant increase in the number of armed robberies involving the use of a firearm in the period following the introduction of the Guns Act 1991. In percentage terms the increase is one of 51.2%. In most cases whether the gun was loaded was either not known or not recorded (almost 90%) but in 8% of incidents it was known to be loaded, usually because the gun was actually fired (6.5%). Although it is rare for the firearm to be actually discharged, nevertheless the potential for serious harm in such cases is obvious even if no harm is intended. In one case in 1994 for example, two offenders entered the office of a service station in the early hours of the morning. One pointed a loaded shotgun at the employee and demanded money. The shotgun discharged seriously injuring and permanently disabling the employee. It was accepted that discharging the gun was unintentional.

An examination of firearm robbery rates shows that the rate continued to increase for the two years after the Guns Act came into force together with the armed robbery rate and the unarmed robbery rate.

Taken from http://www.aic.gov.au/crime_types/violence

[irish2]

Originally Posted by karj

Are you kidding me?

This was your argument originally, and then it backfired when I pointed out that gun massacres had decreased.

This whole thread is about gun massacres.

Really? There are far more deaths from firearms than singular one off events.

Have a read of this link
http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/CJB98.pdf/$file/CJB98.pdf
and show me how law changes in 1997 made an impact.

[JC]

Originally Posted by xtremerus

So you think Olympic Air Pistol is a training ground for killing.
What are you on?

Is it a gun? What were gun's invented for? You can work out the rest.

And for the record, I am on nothing since giving up cigarettes 6 months ago, but thanks for asking.

[karj]

Originally Posted by irish2

Really? There are far more deaths from firearms than singular one off events.

Have a read of this link
http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/CJB98.pdf/$file/CJB98.pdf
and show me how law changes in 1997 made an impact.

Yes really... this thread is about gun massacres. Go back to the original post.

As for your argument... you quoted this article earlier:
http://www.aic.gov.au/crime_types/violence/weapons/~/media/conferences/outlook99/warner.ashx

In the context of a rising armed robbery rate it was hoped that regulating firearms would restrict access to them by those committing robbery, many of whom commit the offence without much planning or preparation. But Fig 3 shows a significant increase in the number of armed robberies involving the use of a firearm in the period following the introduction of the Guns Act 1991. In percentage terms the increase is one of 51.2%. In most cases whether the gun was loaded was either not known or not recorded (almost 90%) but in 8% of incidents it was known to be loaded, usually because the gun was actually fired (6.5%). Although it is rare for the firearm to be actually discharged, nevertheless the potential for serious harm in such cases is obvious even if no harm is intended. In one case in 1994 for example, two offenders entered the office of a service station in the early hours of the morning. One pointed a loaded shotgun at the employee and demanded money. The shotgun discharged seriously injuring and permanently disabling the employee. It was accepted that discharging the gun was unintentional.

But that same article goes on to say...

Fig 3 shows the number and rate of firearm assaults increased in the Guns Act period. There was a 21 per cent increase in the number of firearm assaults. Fig 4 shows the firearm assault rate also increased in the post Act period and the temporal behaviour of the total assault rate mirrored the firearm assault rate until 1996. Since the enactment of the Firearms Act 1996 the firearm assault appears to have declined. In 1997 both the firearm assault rate and the assault rate dropped and in 1998 the firearm assault rate continued to drop but the total assault rate increased.

There was the Guns Act introduced in 1991, and the laws were tightened after the 96 massacre with Firearms Act 1996.

[irish2]

Originally Posted by karj

Yes really... this thread is about gun massacres. Go back to the original post.

As for your argument... you quoted this article earlier:
http://www.aic.gov.au/crime_types/violence/weapons/~/media/conferences/outlook99/warner.ashx


But that same article goes on to say...


There was the Guns Act introduced in 1991, and the laws were tightened after the 96 massacre with Firearms Act 1996.

Then in the second article it specifically shows and increase in attempted homicide with guns from 1995 to 2005 in NSW.

[H.G]

[xtremerus]

Some info on NSW
Part of obtaining a Provisional Licence in NSW.


"a) Been refused or prohibited from holding a firearms licence or permit or had a firearm licence or permit suspended, cancelled or revoked (circle) YES NO
b) Are you currently subject to a Good Behaviour Bond for an offence referred in Question e)? (circle) YES NO
c) Been, or are presently, subject to a firearms/weapons prohibition order? (circle) YES NO
d) Attempted suicide or self harm or been referred or treated for alcoholism, drug dependency or a mental or nervous disorder or illness? (circle) YES NO
e) Been convicted of an offence involving firearms or weapons, prohibited drugs/plants, fraud/dishonesty/stealing, prescribed restricted substances, terrorism, violence, robbery, or an offence of a sexual nature? (circle) YES NO
f) Within the last 10 years been subject of a Domestic Violence Order or Apprehended Violence Order ( other than an order which was revoked ) or an injunction ordered by the Family Court? (circle) YES NO
"


Many people can't circle NO to all questions. Including many politicians and high profile personalities.
Maybe, even some on AAF.

The owner of a Firearms Licence is often of better character than a lot of others in the community.

[karj]

Originally Posted by irish2

Then in the second article it specifically shows and increase in attempted homicide with guns from 1995 to 2005 in NSW.

I give up, my dinner is going cold.

If you want to continue on thinking that our current gun laws are ineffective and that people should have complete unfettered, unrestricted access to all firearms... fine.

I'll just continue on in reality.

[irish2]

Originally Posted by karj

I give up, my dinner is going cold.

If you want to continue on thinking that our current gun laws are ineffective and that people should have complete unfettered, unrestricted access to all firearms... fine.

I'll just continue on in reality.

That was not what I was saying at all. I was pointing out that gun control didn't stop the criminals. It made normal people hand back their guns whilst the criminals stock piled more. The one good thing to come out of gun control is guns are used much less frequently in suicides. Too bad the suicide rate itself didn't decrease.

[H.G]

Originally Posted by irish2

The one good thing to come out of gun control is guns are used much less frequently in suicides. Too bad the suicide rate itself didn't decrease.

they need to ban rope as well as cars and guns now..

[xtremerus]

Originally Posted by JC

Is it a gun? What were gun's invented for? You can work out the rest.

And for the record, I am on nothing since giving up cigarettes 6 months ago, but thanks for asking.

Hope you don't use, or rely on things developed for war.
GSP, radar, jet aircraft, the list goes on.
Or do you wish these were banned too?

[TC200six]

Lets ban marijuana to stop the drug trade.. Hey wait a minute.... it's already illegal.

It's the same with guns. If you think banning legal firearms is going to stop gun crime and start eternal peace, you have to be kidding.

[mik]

Originally Posted by TC200six

Lets ban marijuana to stop the drug trade.. Hey wait a minute.... it's already illegal.

It's the same with guns. If you think banning legal firearms is going to stop gun crime and start eternal peace, you have to be kidding.

who`s to know, it may have stopped the cinema shooting in the US.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by mik

who`s to know, it may have stopped the cinema shooting in the US.

You mean the one done by the guy who had a room full of explosives and booby traps?

[pottery beige]

guns dont kill people.. true story....

[karj]

Originally Posted by irish2

That was not what I was saying at all. I was pointing out that gun control didn't stop the criminals. It made normal people hand back their guns whilst the criminals stock piled more. The one good thing to come out of gun control is guns are used much less frequently in suicides. Too bad the suicide rate itself didn't decrease.

I'm now confused... Your view seems inconsistent.

If you are not saying that you think people should have complete unfettered, unrestricted access to all firearms, that would imply that you believe in gun control/restriction. But you also believe that gun control doesn't stop criminals. This begs the question: Why do you believe in gun restriction if it doesn't impact crime?

The 1995-2005 NSW crime stats that you drew to my attention (which I've now had a chance to look at) don't actually support your position that gun control doesn't decrease gun crime. http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlin...file/CJB98.pdf

It concludes:

Our analysis also shows that the number of recorded firearm offences has been declining in NSW in recent years. Over the 11-year period examined, the number of people killed with a firearm decreased by 45 per cent and the number of robberies with a firearm decreased by 33 per cent.

The period examined is the period post 1996 gun laws.

It further concludes:

While recorded criminal incidents involving a handgun have generally followed the same trend as all firearm offences in NSW, handgun offences have not declined to the same extent. As such, the proportion of firearm incidents that are committed with a handgun is now higher than it was in the mid to late 1990s. For example, in 2005 approximately 60 per cent of armed robberies involved a handgun, compared with just 43 per cent in 1995.

This means that firearm offences are down overall, but handgun offences are higher. Simply put, in armed robberies the handgun is used in preference to other guns.

As reported by Fitzgerald et al. (2001), there was a significant rise in the number of shoot with intent incidents in NSW between 1995 and 2000. Shooting incidents rose again in 2001 to 115 recorded incidents but have since fallen substantially. By 2005 recorded shootings in NSW had decreased by 46 per cent and were at similar levels to those recorded in the mid 1990s.

That doesn't surprise me hugely. We are talking about intent to kill here, so I suspect that these incidents are largely organised crime, gangs, domestic violence, etc.

It's a very simple concept: increased availability of and access to guns and you have higher rates of gun crime. This situation is not unique to firearms... if you increase access to healthcare, you have a healthier society... if you increase access to education, people are more highly educated... if you have a 3-4 different fast food chain outlets in every suburb, we have fatter kids... and so on.

Less guns = less gun crime. More guns = more gun crime.

It is not good enough to take the simplistic view that the options are either ban them completely or do nothing... There is a balance between these two extremes and it's called gun control. It doesn't eliminate gun crime, but it does reduce it and it doesn't impinge *hugely* on civil liberty.

[H.G]

Guns don't kill duckling, ducklings kill ducklings
They're the biggest threat to your masculinity.

[AU Mont]

Originally Posted by xtremerus

Some info on NSW
Part of obtaining a Provisional Licence in NSW.


"a) Been refused or prohibited from holding a firearms licence or permit or had a firearm licence or permit suspended, cancelled or revoked (circle) YES NO
b) Are you currently subject to a Good Behaviour Bond for an offence referred in Question e)? (circle) YES NO
c) Been, or are presently, subject to a firearms/weapons prohibition order? (circle) YES NO
d) Attempted suicide or self harm or been referred or treated for alcoholism, drug dependency or a mental or nervous disorder or illness? (circle) YES NO
e) Been convicted of an offence involving firearms or weapons, prohibited drugs/plants, fraud/dishonesty/stealing, prescribed restricted substances, terrorism, violence, robbery, or an offence of a sexual nature? (circle) YES NO
f) Within the last 10 years been subject of a Domestic Violence Order or Apprehended Violence Order ( other than an order which was revoked ) or an injunction ordered by the Family Court? (circle) YES NO
"


Many people can't circle NO to all questions. Including many politicians and high profile personalities.
Maybe, even some on AAF.

The owner of a Firearms Licence is often of better character than a lot of others in the community.

i answered no to all them, does that mean i can have a gun?

i dont think anyone wants that !!!!

[jcxr]

Any one read about the Martin Bryant conspiracy?
Makes for very good reading.