Rubbish in the Herald
Roger Dewhurst
trying to understand why he died, shot on Thursday morning after a brief
argument with two other young men. Hours after Jai's death, gun control
advocates launched a new campaign against still-legal semi-automatic
handguns which now flood the Australian underworld."
Campaigns against inanimate objects in criminal hands is not only utterly
useless but counterproductive. Whatever semi-automatic weapons flood the
Australian underworld, none are legal. It is doubtful if any ever were
legal. The problem lies not with the weapons but with the criminals who use
them. They are criminals because they have been brought up by criminals
and/or led to believe that criminality is a valid and acceptable lifestyle
by an education system that instills no values whatever. Anything is
acceptable, anyone can choose their lifestyle, criminal or otherwise, all
are equal in the eyes of the psychobabblers.
As for Martin Bryant, where is the evidence against him? The press and
politicians baying for his blood, little else. No fingerprints, no forensic
evidence, no evidence linking him to the weapons used, no eye witness
identification, no coroner's enquiry, no proper trial and much
circumstantial evidence suggesting that he could not have done it and was
not mentally capable of doing it.
--
Roger Dewhurst,
ROTORUA, N.Z.
Politicians and babies nappies
should be changed frequently,
and for much the same reason.
Grinch
> "Today in Sydney the stunned parents of 18-year-old Jai Graham Jago
> are trying to understand why he died, shot on Thursday morning
> after a brief argument with two other young men. Hours after Jai's
> death, gun control advocates launched a new campaign against
> still-legal semi-automatic handguns which now flood the Australian
> underworld."
People want a new motorway through transmission Gully because of deaths
on the Kapiti Coast road, on nationwide TV news.
Roads don't kill people, people kill people. :-(
Cars don't kill people, people kill people. :-P
--
Jono
Roger Dewhurst wrote:
From the same article:
"Byant...has become a martyr to conspiracy theorists, accepted and promoted by
far-right extremists...Beyond the lunatic fringe there has never been any doubt
of Bryant's guilt"
So Roger, which are you? Conspiracy nut, extremist, lunatic or all three?
Jono
Roger Dewhurst
"Jono" <pig...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3AEA3EA7...@ihug.co.nz...
>
>
> From the same article:
>
> "Byant...has become a martyr to conspiracy theorists, accepted and
promoted by
> far-right extremists...Beyond the lunatic fringe there has never been any
doubt
> of Bryant's guilt"
>
> So Roger, which are you? Conspiracy nut, extremist, lunatic or all three?
Read below and when you have answered all the questions in a rational manner
come back and ask me your question above.
What Was Alleged Martin Bryant Did That Day & Things That Happened Up To His
Sentencing:
Before looking at the unanswered questions one needs to be aware of what it
is alleged Bryant did that day. The exact details can be found on the DPP's
Case Court Transcript page on this site - below is a summary:-
The case against Martin Bryant alleged he killed Mr. & Mrs. Martin at
Seascape Cottage Guesthouse sometime before 12.40pm then travelled south 6km
to see a Mr.Larner then proceeded into the Port Arthur Historic Site and
after an argument with the parking attendant went to the Broad Arrow Cafe
and bought lunch. He sat having lunch inside then went outside to finish it.
At 1.30pm he then went back inside the Cafe and opened fire with a COLT M16
CAR .223 Cal. Rifle killing 25 people in 90 seconds then left the Cafe
shooting at people in and around the car park killing and wounding more -
during that time he switched guns to an FN SLR .308 Rifle . He then is
alleged to have driven his yellow Volvo out of the site shooting people
along the way and at the tollbooth. He then abandons his car and transfers
some of his implements to a BMW which belonged to his victims at the
tollgate ( he leaves behind the keys to Seascape, cans of petrol and a
Daewoo Shotgun and ammo ) . He then stops at the service station up the road
shooting more people and takes a hostage who is forced into the boot of the
BMW. The BMW then proceeds at high speed 6 km north to Seascape where he
stops and shoots at cars on the highway injuring more people. He then takes
his hostage inside Seascape and sets fire to the BMW. The time is now around
2pm. Local police wait in a ditch for several hours while shots are fired
from Seascape. After dark Special Operations Group Police arrive at
Seascape. During the night police talk on the phone to someone identified as
"Jamie" at Seascape. Many shots are fired from Seascape during the night but
nobody outside is hit.. At 7.45am the following morning Seascape errupts in
smoke on fire. At 8.40am Martin Bryant -clothes on fire emerges from the
rear of Seascape staggering and unarmed and is apprehended by police with TV
News cameras rolling. Bryant remains in hospital isolated for several weeks.
He denies committing the shootings to police when interviewed. He pleads not
guilty for months. His first lawyer is removed in unclear circumstances and
his second lawyer gets him ( reportedly under pressure ) to later plead
guilty ( thereby avoiding then requirement for a proper jury trial and
scrutiny of evidence ). Bryant's isolation continues to this day with his
relatives being refused access to see him.
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
Below is a summary of the main unanswered questions about the incident in
sequence of their happening under topic headings. Some of these points are
covered in more detail on other pages on this site. Many more questions are
raised on the CD-ROM referred to on the Introduction and Credits page.
PRELUDE
New South Wales Premier Barrie Unsworth said in 1987 "There will not be any
change to gun laws until there is a massacre in Tasmania" following the a
meeting of the States failing agree on uniforn national gun laws. ( Was this
setting the stage ? )
Despite repeated refusal by the States to go down this path why were
National Uniform Gun Laws all prepared and ready in Dec 1995 to go to an
upcoming meeting of State and Federal Police Ministers due sometme around
the time Port Arthur occurred ?
Why did Tasmanian Premier Ray Groom in an unprecedented move resign on 18th
March 1996 as Premier ( just 2 weeks after Howard wins 1996 Federal
Election ) and take over all Tasmanian portfolios that would have anything
to do with a massacre at Port Arthur - Minister for Justice, Attorney
General, Tourism ( including the Port Arthur Historic Site ), and Workplace
Safety ? Tony Rundle an ex journalist takes his place as Premier.
Why did the Tasmanian Mortuary Service have a special Chevy Mortuary Truck
capable of carrying 22 bodies made shortly before Port Arthur ?
THE MARTIN'S AT SEASCAPE
Why would Bryant want to kill the Martin's - owners of the Seascape ?
How and when could he have shot them that day with the neighbours house only
20 metres away ?
Why is the evidence of the guests who stayed at Seascape overnight
inconsistent with that of other witnesses regards the presence of a yellow
Volvo before noon ? Were there 2 yellow Volvo's and Bryant being emulated in
order to make him the patsy for this incident ?
BROAD ARROW CAFÉ
Why would Bryant want to shoot so many people he did not know - MOTIVE ?
Why was a management work seminar scheduled that Sunday for staff of the
Port Arthur Site - only one ever held and none held since - for that day and
why was it held at a location 2 hours drive away ? .Was it to get key staff
away ? And isn't it also a coincidence it was scheduled for almost the exact
time the shooting began - 1pm.
Why was the only local policemen in the Port Arthur area sent to investigate
a phoney drug tip-off ( heroin in a bottle which turned out to be
soap-powder ) in the most distant part of his police district ( only one
ever recorded ) shortly before the shootings started ? And was that
diversion also to prevent him from closing the drawbridge to the mainland
which would have bottled up the gunman ? And isn't it another incredible
coincidence that only 4 minutes after they reported by radio arriving at
their destination that the shooting started in the Cafe ?
Why did that caller ring the local police and not dial 000 ( 911 ) - was it
was because 000 number is recorded ?
How could Bryant, an unskilled person of low intellect, kill 25 people in
the café by head shots and wound numerous others fired from the hip in 90
seconds ?
Why did senior Tasmanian Police keep police away from Port Arthur for as
long as possible - 6 hours - when police headquarters was only an hour's
drive away ? Was it to allow the crime scene to get messed up ? And why did
they let only the small handful Special Operation Group personnel into the
Seascape site ?
Why was the Café's emergency exit door that jammed faulty ? Was it
deliberately tampered with ? And why did it reportedly go missing after the
incident - was it switched ?
THE ROAD TO SEASCAPE
Why was the yellow Volvo left behind with ammo etc. in it at the Tollgate ?
Why change cars and at where it was done ? Was it to leave something of
Bryant's there at the Port Arthur crime scene ?
Why take a hostage at the Service Station ? Put a man in boot ? Why not just
kill him as he had been doing since it started ? Was it to keep police at
bay at Seascape under seize standoff conditions until night fell ? Why would
he do that or was it to allow other to escape in the cover of darkness ?
SEASCAPE
Why was a trail of destruction led to Seascape ?
Why would Bryant set fire to the BMW ? Was it done by the real gunman to
destroy fingerprint and other evidence ? Or was it to create a beacon to
attract police ?
Why were SOG snipers told not to shoot at a man seen on the roof of Seascape
with a gun ?
Why did so many shots fired from Seascape that night hit nothing given
Bryant was claimed to be a crack shot ?
Why did Seascape ignite that morning like an incendiary bomb had gone off ?
And why did it happen that morning and not in the dark ? Was it to destroy
all evidence inside including making an examination of the bodies those dead
inside difficult - in terms of determining time of death ? Why would Bryant
want to do that ?
Why would Bryant knowing he was surrounded lite such a fire - it would only
serve to force him outside to be shot at or captured ? Why would police lite
one knowing hostages were inside ?
Why were fire trucks prevented from putting out the fire after Bryant was
grabbed police knowing hostages were inside ? Seascape was only smoking when
he was grabbed.
Why did Bryant stagger from Seascape as if drugged and the burns only to the
back of his body if lying down ? Was it the fire that woke him up after
being drugged by the real gunman and his helpers ?
AFTERMATH
Why was there no positive ID of Bryant done by police by lineup or mug shots
as required by law ? Why hasn't anyone identified him positively ?
Why were there no fingerprints found on - the sports bag - the guns - the
surfboard ?
Why did the Tasmanian Mortuary Service, which had a special Chevy Morg Truck
capable of carrying 22 bodies which was used at Port Arthur, sell it shortly
afterwards - and why would they need such a truck of that capacity - for a
State when there is usually three or less murders a year ? Why did the
operator of the service recently publically criticise Cafe witness Wendy
Scurr in a letter to a newspaper for querying this unusual vehicle and its
history ?
Why was Bryant's hands and face uninjured when his Colt M16 CAR rifle was
found which blew a cartridge in the breech and exploded making it
unoperative ?
Why were 2 sports bags found when witnesses said the gunman had only one ?
Were the guns found at Seascape really Bryant's and were they really the
ones used on the day ?
Why was the COLT CAR rifle missing the pistol grip and why was the FN's
barrel bent and had parts missing from it when recovered from Seascape, and
those parts never found ? And how could the COLT - a plastic gun - survive a
fire intact ?
Why were police, the media, Justice Minister Ray Groom etc. saying the
people in the café were all shot within 90 seconds when witnesses there
claim it was between 5 to 6 minutes - why the reduction of the time ? Was it
to justify the rapidfire aspect of the guns for a ban ?
Why was the Broad Arrow Café bulldozed so quickly - was it to destroy
evidence of what really took place there - like a second gunman backing up
the main gunman ?
How did the media know it was Bryant before he was arrested at 8.40 am that
Monday morning ? How could the Hobart Mercury know it was him for their
morning print run for that day done much earlier than 8.40 am ? The man on
the phone's name was "Jamie".
Who doctored video footage of a running man adding the soundtrack of shots
from another video and presented this as Bryant ( prior to his trial ) which
was also used at his trial as evidence which was shown on Channel 9's Ray
Martin Current Affair Program ? Was it Channel 9 who did it and if so was it
at Ray Martin's own instruction ? ( For Overseas readers Ray Martin was a TV
Current Affairs Host with thoroughly anti-gun views ). Was it the DDP or the
Tasmanian Police ?
Why does one of the "tourist" videos show no colour or features on "Bryant"
standing next to his Volvo when surrounding objects like cars have them ?
Why is Bryant's face black - is it to hide the face of the real gunman ? Why
is there a halo around the picture as if electronically pasted ?
Why has there been no Coroner's Inquest ? This is something totally
unprecedented.
THE COURT PROCEEDINGS
Why did Bryant persistently state under questioning he did not go to Port
Arthur that day and did not shoot anyone ?
Why did Bryant plead not guilty for months ? Why would someone do that if he
knew he could be identified ? Why was he isolated for months and his mother
refused access ?
Why was Bryant's first lawyer removed ? Who removed him ? Why did he only
plead guilty after pressure from his new lawyer ?
Why was Hobart gun dealer, Terry Hill, who was alleged to have sold the
weapons to Bryant was dragged into court over it and the minute he started
wanting to get Bryant and other witnesses into court to testify the action
was dropped - as if authorities didn't want any scrutiny of the evidence ?
Also - why did the Tasmanian Police and DPP try to get Terry Hill to admit
he sold him the guns by offering immunity ( the guns Bryant said he never
owned ).
Why did the DPP censor and edit out so many pages of Bryant's taped police
interview ? And how could the recording equipment for that interview
breakdown ?
Why have the Tasmanian DPP Damien Bugg QC and other people associated with
the case been promoted ?
POLITICAL REACTION - NATIONAL GUN LAWS
Why did Prime Minister John Howard in the say "some firearm owners were
going to have to make sacrifices" when annoucing the National Gun Laws he
imposed.
Why did John Howard also decide and declare a coronor's inquest into Port
Arthur be denied - when it is not his responsibility or jurisdiction to do
so ? What was John trying to hide ? Was he trying to protect some of his
mates in the Tasmanian and Federal Liberal Party who were involved - Ray
Groom perhaps ?
Why did Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer after the imposition of the Howard
imposed gun laws following Port Arthur say: "This is all about removing guns
from urban areas".
enkidu
>
> > "Byant...has become a martyr to conspiracy theorists,
> > accepted and promoted by far-right extremists...Beyond
> > the lunatic fringe there has never been any doubt of
> > Bryant's guilt"
> >
> > So Roger, which are you? Conspiracy nut, extremist,
> > lunatic or all three?
>
In summary, the story is that the Australian govt set the
stage for and carried out a massacre just to get some gun
laws enacted!!
Cheers,
Cliff
Stephen
remaining open minded I now receive the below titles.
Rubbish, and what a rubbish response.
Open Minded - Stephen.
Roger Dewhurst
"enkidu" <enk...@cliffp.com> wrote in message
news:3AEA7886...@cliffp.com...
It is primarily about the absence of any case against Martin Bryant. If
there is no case against Martin Bryant then who did it? Whoever did it,
why? You, totally and utterless obsessed with the 'evil' of guns must
believe that it was Bryant. I know that it borders on the impossible for
you, but try and be objective on this occasion.
enkidu
>
> It is primarily about the absence of any case against
> Martin Bryant. If there is no case against Martin Bryant
> then who did it? Whoever did it, why? You, totally and
> utterless obsessed with the 'evil' of guns must believe
> that it was Bryant. I know that it borders on the
> impossible for you, but try and be objective on this
> occasion.
>
charged - I obviously haven't reviewed and checked
information, and I bet you haven't either. You evidence
appears to be a cut and paste from a website. Care to
give the URL?
However, I don't see that a string of coincidences is any
evidence at all for the implicit acccusation that the
Australian Government engineered a massacre in order to
get gun-laws enacted. What the hell could the motive
have been? And if it were a conspiracy on that scale,
something (besides those dubious coincidences) would
have leaked.
Cheers,
Cliff
Jono
Stephen wrote:
Actually no, this is the typical response to anyone pushing a pro-gun political barrow
over the bodies of 35 innocent victoms.
Jono
Gary Henderson
> The problem lies not with the weapons but with the criminals who use them.
You are faced with someone who wants to hurt you. You have two choices:
(a) He has a weapon.
(b) He doesn't have a weapon.
Pick one.
Gary
Geoff M
How are you going to stop him getting a weapon - a golf club for
example...
G
Roger Dewhurst
"Gary Henderson" <gar...@internet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:garnet-3004...@ip-210-48-24-52.asiaonline.net.nz...
Insufficient information! What weapon does he have? How big is he? Do I
have a weapon? What weapon? Where is this happening? Are there others
around? Day or night?
Jeremy Bowen
> "Gary Henderson" <gar...@internet.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:garnet-3004...@ip-210-48-24-52.asiaonline.net.nz...
> >
> > You are faced with someone who wants to hurt you. You have two choices:
> >
> > (a) He has a weapon.
> > (b) He doesn't have a weapon.
> >
> > Pick one.
>
> Insufficient information!
Bollocks. Dersu failed to answer this question. Neither will any other
gun-lobby goon because the whole gun-lobby case falls apart.
> What weapon does he have?
He has a gun. Any gun. It doesn't matter what kind of gun.
> How big is he?
Immaterial. He is capable of using the gun.
> Do I have a weapon?
Immaterial. The other person has a gun.
> Where is this happening? Are there others around? Day or night?
Immaterial. Immaterial. Immaterial.
In any *possible* situation when you are faced with someone who wants to
hurt you, pick (a) or (b) !!!!
Answer the question. I know you can't. Dersu couldn't. I'll lay maximum
odds that you won't either.
Roger Dewhurst
"Jeremy Bowen" <jam...@fXlashmail.cXoXm> wrote in message
news:uwv825...@tality.com...
Crimes Act 1961 Sec 48
(2) Every one unlawfully assaulted, not having provoked the assault, is
justified in repelling force by force although in so doing he causes death
or grievous bodily harm, if---
(a) He causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily
harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with
which the assailant pursues his purpose;
and
(b) He believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve
himself from death or grievous bodily harm.
Cf. 1908, No. 32, s. 73
Section 2 Interpretation of the Crimes Act defines assault thusly:
"Assault" means the act of intentionally applying or attempting to apply
force to the person of another, directly or indirectly, or threatening by
any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another, if the
person Making the threat has, or causes the other to believe on reasonable
grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; and "to assault"
has a corresponding meaning:
I would act within the law as far as circumstances permit. The
circumstances are far from immaterial. For example, if the attacker is
standing 10 metres away and is holding a small calibre revolver I would not
feel particularly disadvantaged if I held a loaded double barrelled shotgun.
As I understand the law I would be quite entitled to shoot the attacker. My
position would be less tenable if the attacker was a woman armed with a
billiard cue. You can visualize a myriad of circumstances between these
two, all of which are modified by the location, the time of day and the
presence or absence of others.
Gary Henderson
> > "Roger Dewhurst" wrote:
> >
> > > The problem lies not with the weapons but with the criminals who use
> them.
> >
> >
> > You are faced with someone who wants to hurt you. You have two choices:
> >
> > (a) He has a weapon.
> > (b) He doesn't have a weapon.
> >
> > Pick one.
And Roger Dewhurst replied:
>
> Insufficient information! What weapon does he have? How big is he? Do I
> have a weapon? What weapon? Where is this happening? Are there others
> around? Day or night?
All that is irrelevant. The question is quite plain. Would you rather
your assailant had a weapon or had no weapon?
Gary
Gary Henderson
geo...@bigfoot.com.DELETE (Geoff M) wrote:
Gary Henderson wrote:
> >You are faced with someone who wants to hurt you. You have two choices:
> >
> >(a) He has a weapon.
> >(b) He doesn't have a weapon.
Geoff M asked:
> How are you going to stop him getting a weapon - a golf club for
> example...
> G
I don't know, but that's not the question. I simply wanted to know
whether Roger would prefer his (admittedly hypothetical) assailant to have
a weapon or not, regardless of what the weapon is, (excluding fists, feet,
teeth etc. of course).
I was specifically responding to his assertion that the PERSON is the
problem, NOT the weapon. I wasn't trying to invalidate his whole
argument.
Gun enthusiasts always argue that way, and their opponents always argue
the opposite. I think neither is true. A gun lying on the floor will not
jump up and kill you all by itself, so clearly the gun alone isn't the
problem. Also, a person who is hell bent on hurting you will usually find
a way, with or without a gun, so yes, the person is obviously a problem.
Fair enough.
But then a person who wants to hurt you can do a lot more damage more
quickly if they have a weapon in their hands. And from a distance, if
that weapon is a gun. And since inanimate objects are easier to control
(or prohibit as the case may be) than people, the obvious way to reduce
the risk is to control the weapon.
The difference between guns and weapons like golf clubs, baseball bats,
garden tools, bits of wood, cars etc, is that the latter are not designed
with the specific intention that they be used as weapons - but since human
ingenuity can turn most things to most purposes they often end up as
such.
Guns on the other hand are designed as weapons. And yes, I know about
target shooting, but that's a peace-time spinoff. Let's face it, most
guns are designed to kill - humans or animals - and the ones that aren't
can still do so.
I hope I never have to face a person with a weapon who wants to hurt me,
but if it ever happens, I hope to god it isn't a gun.
Gary
Roger Dewhurst
>
> > > "Roger Dewhurst" wrote:
> > >
> > > > The problem lies not with the weapons but with the criminals who use
> > them.
> > >
> So Gary Henderson said:
> > >
> > > You are faced with someone who wants to hurt you. You have two
choices:
> > >
> > > (a) He has a weapon.
> > > (b) He doesn't have a weapon.
> > >
> > > Pick one.
>
I did not at first grasp the utter stupidity of your question. The criminal
has the choice. His first choice may be a gun. If he cannot get one he has
many other choices. If he is intent on doing me harm he will have a weapon
unless he is so large and powerful that he feels that a weapon is
unnecessary. If he is armed with a gun there is some prospect that death
might be relatively painless. If he is armed only with an axe handle death
is likely to be slow and painful. Personally I would prefer a situation in
which the odds are more even.
Gary Henderson
<dewh...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
So is that (a) or (b)?
Gary
Gary Henderson
"Roger Dewhurst" wrote:
> > I did not at first grasp the utter stupidity of your question. The criminal
> > has the choice. His first choice may be a gun. If he cannot get one he has
> > many other choices. If he is intent on doing me harm he will have a weapon
> > unless he is so large and powerful that he feels that a weapon is
> > unnecessary. If he is armed with a gun there is some prospect that death
> > might be relatively painless. If he is armed only with an axe handle death
> > is likely to be slow and painful. Personally I would prefer a situation in
> > which the odds are more even.
>
> So is that (a) or (b)?
>
> Gary
Ok, all flippancy aside, I think it's clear as day I was proposing a
hypothetical situation in order to make a point. Would you rather face
off against an assailant with a weapon, or the same assailant, in the same
situation, without a weapon. Anything else about the situation - day or
night, where you are, what you are holding - is irrelevant to the
question.
I know it's futile, because you are NEVER going to say you would prefer
your assailant not to have a weapon.
Are you.
Gary
Roger Dewhurst
There is no point in answering "have you stopped beating your wife" type
questions.
If the answer (b) is offered you will then argue that no-one should be
armed. You might just as well say "no-one should be a criminal". The
reality is that there are criminals and will be for the foreseeable future.
Likewise some of these will be armed with whatever they choose. In many
cases they will choose guns bought on the black market or stolen. Don't
say "there would be no guns to steal if they were illegal". There is a
large reservoir of stolen guns already and this is incremented as 'needed'
with smuggled weapons.
Gary Henderson
> >
> > Ok, all flippancy aside, I think it's clear as day I was proposing a
> > hypothetical situation in order to make a point. Would you rather face
> > off against an assailant with a weapon, or the same assailant, in the same
> > situation, without a weapon. Anything else about the situation - day or
> > night, where you are, what you are holding - is irrelevant to the
> > question.
> >
> > I know it's futile, because you are NEVER going to say you would prefer
> > your assailant not to have a weapon.
> >
> > Are you.
> > "Roger Dewhurst" wrote:
>
> There is no point in answering "have you stopped beating your wife" type
> questions.
>
> If the answer (b) is offered you will then argue that no-one should be
> armed. You might just as well say "no-one should be a criminal". The
> reality is that there are criminals and will be for the foreseeable future.
> Likewise some of these will be armed with whatever they choose. In many
> cases they will choose guns bought on the black market or stolen. Don't
> say "there would be no guns to steal if they were illegal". There is a
> large reservoir of stolen guns already and this is incremented as 'needed'
> with smuggled weapons.
Yes ... point taken ... but I've got to go out. More later.
Gary
Geoff M
Henderson) wrote:
>I hope I never have to face a person with a weapon who wants to hurt me,
>but if it ever happens, I hope to god it isn't a gun.
Cheer up, according to the stats, you are far more likely to be
bludgeoned, stabbed or beaten to death than shot.
Geoff
Dersu
>Would you rather face
> off against an assailant with a weapon, or the same assailant, in the same
> situation, without a weapon.
I would rather face an assailant if I had a weapon that I know how to use
effectively. Whether my assailant has a weapon or not is immaterial. Why do
you seek to give all the advantage to the criminal who wants to attack me
(or you for that matter)? Why should I not be allowed to have about me the
means to defend myself if the need should arise?
D.
Jeremy Bowen
> "Jeremy Bowen" <jam...@fXlashmail.cXoXm> wrote
> > Bollocks. Dersu failed to answer this question. Neither will any other
> > gun-lobby goon because the whole gun-lobby case falls apart.
And I was right. Roger won't answer the question.
> > Answer the question. I know you can't. Dersu couldn't. I'll lay maximum
> > odds that you won't either.
Ka-ching!
> I would act within the law as far as circumstances permit. The
> circumstances are far from immaterial. For example, if the attacker is
> standing 10 metres away and is holding a small calibre revolver I would not
> feel particularly disadvantaged if I held a loaded double barrelled
> shotgun.
OK Lets call this situation (b) Attacker with a weapon.
How disadvantaged would you feel if the attacker was 10 metres away holding
nothing ? Lets call this situation (a) Attacker without a weapon.
Which would you prefer ? (a) or (b)
You are simply incapable of answering the question because of the mental
hell you'll have to go through admitting that you could be wrong.
enkidu
>
> I would rather face an assailant if I had a weapon that
> I know how to use effectively. Whether my assailant has
> a weapon or not is immaterial. Why do you seek to give
> all the advantage to the criminal who wants to attack me
> (or you for that matter)? Why should I not be allowed
> to have about me the means to defend myself if the
> need should arise?
>
Cheers,
Cliff
Roger Dewhurst
Who knows? Robbery? Lunacy? This is merely a response to an ambiguous
question by Gary Henderson. Go back to the beginning of the thread to read
it.
Gary Henderson
>
> >I hope I never have to face a person with a weapon who wants to hurt me,
> >but if it ever happens, I hope to god it isn't a gun.
Geoff replied:
> Cheer up, according to the stats, you are far more likely to be
> bludgeoned, stabbed or beaten to death than shot.
> Geoff
Whew!
Gary
Gary Henderson
<dewh...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
> "enkidu" <enk...@cliffp.com> wrote in message
> news:3AEE9386...@cliffp.com...
> > Dersu wrote:
> > >
> > > I would rather face an assailant if I had a weapon that
> > > I know how to use effectively. Whether my assailant has
> > > a weapon or not is immaterial. Why do you seek to give
> > > all the advantage to the criminal who wants to attack me
> > > (or you for that matter)? Why should I not be allowed
> > > to have about me the means to defend myself if the
> > > need should arise?
enkidu wrote:
> > >
> > So, why is this guy out to get you anyway?
Roger Dewhurst said:
>
> Who knows? Robbery? Lunacy? This is merely a response to an ambiguous
> question by Gary Henderson. Go back to the beginning of the thread to read
> it.
Ah well, I guess ambiguity is a step up from "utter stupidity." Are we
becoming friends?
Gary
Dersu
> >
> So, why is this guy out to get you anyway?
I think Jeremy put him up to it!
D.
Dersu
"Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
news:9cncfh$uue$1...@news.wave.co.nz...
> > So, why is this guy out to get you anyway?
>
> Who knows? Robbery? Lunacy? This is merely a response to an ambiguous
> question by Gary Henderson. Go back to the beginning of the thread to
read
> it.
Maybe it was Gary. Christ! They're all out to get me!!
D.
enkidu
Cheers,
Cliff
Gary Henderson
<de...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
Heheh ... (insert "Jaws" music.)
Anyway, the correct answer to that question (what was it again?) is (b).
No way on god's green earth would any sane person prefer to face an armed
assailant rather than an unarmed one.
Gary
Jeremy Bowen
> I would rather face an assailant if I had a weapon that I know how to use
> effectively. Whether my assailant has a weapon or not is immaterial. Why do
> you seek to give all the advantage to the criminal who wants to attack me
> (or you for that matter)? Why should I not be allowed to have about me the
> means to defend myself if the need should arise?
Why do you feel it necessary to be armed, yourself, against a possible
assailant ? Are you not simply escalating the arms race ?
By assuming that you must be armed against any possible attack, you are
making it more likely that the assailant will arm themself.
If this behaviour becomes normal then everyone suffers as you've got
lunatics on both sides of the law, carrying arms.
Don't you feel it would be better to eliminate the possibility of the
assailant being armed with a gun, rather than mandate that innocent people
arm themselves for some pre-emptive strike ?
You are exhibiting all the symptoms of cold-war paranoia. I think you
should seek professional help.
Jeremy Bowen
> There is no point in answering "have you stopped beating your wife" type
> questions.
This is NOT one of those questions because neither of the two answers
implies anything about your situation.
> If the answer (b) is offered you will then argue that no-one should be
> armed.
Sounds good so far.....
> You might just as well say "no-one should be a criminal".
Yes. And your point is ????
> In many cases they will choose guns bought on the black market or
> stolen.
So we should make it as difficult as possible for this to happen.
> Don't say "there would be no guns to steal if they were illegal".
But there WOULD be *no* guns to steal if they *were* illegal.
> There is a large reservoir of stolen guns already and this is
> incremented as 'needed' with smuggled weapons.
This argument is used time and time again. It is as invalid now as it ever
was. Just because something is difficult to enforce, that doesn't mean we
should abandon all efforts at enforcement.
Drunk driving is a burden on police resources. Should we stop trying to
eliminate it ?
Selling cigarettes to under 16's is illegal. Should we distribute them at
kindergarten ?
Let's freely allow all classes of drugs unrestricted entry into the country
becase Roger Dewhurst thinks it's not worth the effort in trying to stop
it.
Your argument is fatally flawed.
Roger Dewhurst
"Jeremy Bowen" <jam...@fXlashmail.cXoXm> wrote in message
> "Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@wave.co.nz> writes:
>
> But there WOULD be *no* guns to steal if they *were* illegal.
Balls.
If firearms were made illegal in this country the whole agricultural base
would be destroyed as would the native forests. If you tried to
exterminate, using poison, everything damaging to agriculture you would
destroy most of the native wildlife as well. You would probably finish up
poisoning more people than die from firearms and you would make a big dent
in the tourist industry as well. A pretty high price to pay for the small
handful of deaths arising each year from the lawful use of firearms. Of
course you would also take away a normal recreation from some thousands of
people. Of course you, being utterly bloody selfish, don't give a damn
about the pleasures, income and lifestyle of others. But I have no doubt
that you would squeal like a stuck pig if the government attempted to make
unlawful one of your pleasures in life, that is if you have any.
Brian Dooley
wrote:
He's heard that Dersu is quicker on the draw and he wants to see
if it's true.
Shades of High Noon and twenty other westerns.
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
enkidu
>
> Of course you, being utterly bloody selfish, don't give
> a damn about the pleasures, income and lifestyle of
> others.
>
really needs their head examined. It's not a sport, it's
a disgusting practise.
Cheers,
Cliff
Geoff M
wrote:
>Why do you feel it necessary to be armed, yourself, against a possible
>assailant ? Are you not simply escalating the arms race ?
>
>By assuming that you must be armed against any possible attack, you are
>making it more likely that the assailant will arm themself.
The crims don't seem to have any hesitation in arming themselves now.
As an example, there are a large number of high profile murder and
assualt cases where thugs have done in victims with weapons rangine
from bare feet, boots, clubs, knives and guns.
Unarmed victims merely make it easier and safer for them.
>If this behaviour becomes normal then everyone suffers as you've got
>lunatics on both sides of the law, carrying arms.
>
>Don't you feel it would be better to eliminate the possibility of the
>assailant being armed with a gun, rather than mandate that innocent people
>arm themselves for some pre-emptive strike ?
Would the lack of a gun stop them? Would alternative weapons be used
instead? Bear in mind that firearms crime is less than 2% of all
violent crime.
Geoffm
Geoff M
>Anyone who delights in blasting holes in living creatures
>really needs their head examined. It's not a sport, it's
>a disgusting practise.
I am sure the 70 million possums in NZ would agree with you...
Geoff
Sulla
Gun control laws must be doing some good, then.
--
Onward and upward, the stars beckon, and judge.
Sulla
said:
The question is clear. it's the answers that are ambiguous. (Means
two-faced)
Dersu
"Geoff M" <geo...@bigfoot.com.DELETE> wrote in message
news:9n92ft80iau7tme0f...@4ax.com...
Speaking on behalf of possums (if you will indulge me for a moment) I would
much rather end my days in this green and pleasant land with a bullet in my
head than with 1080 in my stomach if it's all the same to you!
D.
Roger Dewhurst
"Dersu" <de...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:9csj95$bso$1...@raewyn.paradise.net.nz...
I am sure that enkidu would prefer to feed you 1080.
R
Roger Dewhurst
Deal with this bit then:-
"If firearms were made illegal in this country the whole agricultural base
would be destroyed as would the native forests. If you tried to
exterminate, using poison, everything damaging to agriculture you would
destroy most of the native wildlife as well. You would probably finish up
poisoning more people than die from firearms and you would make a big dent
in the tourist industry as well. A pretty high price to pay for the small
handful of deaths arising each year from the lawful use of firearms.
Of course you, being utterly bloody selfish, don't give a damn
about the income and lifestyle of others. But I have no doubt
that you would squeal like a stuck pig if the government attempted to make
unlawful one of your pleasures in life, that is if you have any."
R
enkidu
>
> enkidu <enk...@cliffp.com> wrote:
>
> >Anyone who delights in blasting holes in living creatures
> >really needs their head examined. It's not a sport, it's
> >a disgusting practise.
> I am sure the 70 million possums in NZ would agree with
> you...
>
that some people feel in killing, and not the necessity of
keeping down a pest. Though there *must* be better ways.
But the gun lobby would have none of that.
Cheers,
Cliff
enkidu
>
> I am sure that enkidu would prefer to feed you 1080.
>
Cheers,
Cliff
enkidu
>
> Deal with this bit then:-
>
> "If firearms were made illegal in this country the whole
> agricultural base would be destroyed as would the native
> forests. If you tried to exterminate, using poison,
> everything damaging to agriculture you would destroy
> most of the native wildlife as well. You would probably
> finish up poisoning more people than die from firearms
> and you would make a big dent in the tourist industry
> as well.
>
your assertion.
Cheers,
Cliff
enkidu
wrote:
>Why do you feel it necessary to be armed, yourself, against
> a possible assailant ? Are you not simply escalating the
> arms race ?
>
Having lived through one arms race, I have no desire to live
through another...
Now there's an interesting analogy. When we had big computers
run by big organisations in a back room, we had the big
players rattling their nuclear sabres at one another. These
days the computing power has moved into the home, and so
has the arms debate.
When the Yanks and the Russians were at it a single mistake
could have caused nuclear war. These days a single incident
could result in an epidemic of firearms incidents, also
resulting in the end of the human race.
Cheers,
Cliff
BTMO
> > >Anyone who delights in blasting holes in living creatures
> > >really needs their head examined. It's not a sport, it's
> > >a disgusting practise.
Then don't do it.
Jeez - do we have to think for you as well as needing to shoot things?
;-)
> > I am sure the 70 million possums in NZ would agree with
> > you...
> >
> I'm sure that they would. We are talking about the *delight*
> that some people feel in killing, and not the necessity of
> keeping down a pest. Though there *must* be better ways.
Genetically engineered possum virus. Oh hang on - you can't do GE in NZ
anymore. No. There is no other way.
> But the gun lobby would have none of that.
Good point.
A pox on genetically engineered viruses.
<runs out to splatter possums all over the scenery with .50 calibre machine,
loaded with cyanide tipped exploding bullets, laughing maniacly at their
pathetic little screams. Hahahahahaha>
Cheers,
Brenton
--
Show them you care, stalk them.
BTMO, 2000
www.btmoland.homestead.com
Its where reality takes a holiday!
Sulla
said:
>
>If firearms were made illegal in this country the whole agricultural base
>would be destroyed as would the native forests.
That's almost the funniest thing I have ever heard. I lived for 20 years in
a farming & forestry community, and can say categorically that guns were NOT
used for pest control. Night rabbit shoots were a once a year sport, like
duck shooting. Shooting possums was a teenage ritual. But effective: no way.
There are far more efficient means of vermin control than teams of Annie
Oakleys or John Waynes filling the ground, trees, and water with lead.
Roger Dewhurst
"Sulla" <c...@jhug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:svu8ftcjpdsqtd4pu...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 3 May 2001 09:10:32 +1200, "Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@wave.co.nz>
> said:
>
> >
> >If firearms were made illegal in this country the whole agricultural base
> >would be destroyed as would the native forests.
>
> That's almost the funniest thing I have ever heard. I lived for 20 years
in
> a farming & forestry community, and can say categorically that guns were
NOT
> used for pest control. Night rabbit shoots were a once a year sport, like
> duck shooting. Shooting possums was a teenage ritual. But effective: no
way.
You might have lived there but with your attitude I doubt that there was any
significant communication between you and the farming and forestry
communities.
One pair of Forest service cullers shot 4000 deer between them in one
season. They were paid one pound per tail! There was no other method of
control of deer, goats, pigs, tahr and chamois. You might now net a few
deer, tahr and chamois in the high county using helicopters, but shooting
would be more effective. How do you propose to control paradise duck on
pastures, and Canada geese?
There is a business operating in the Tauranga area which takes only shot
possums for pet food.
R
Roger Dewhurst
The Infroduction and Establishment of Red Deer in New Zealand, by Logan and
Harris, lists some 220 liberations of red deer in this country between 1851
and 1923, but there were undoubtedly many more. Early records are sketchy,
and details of the fate of deer known to have been held by acclimatisation
societies for eventual release are frequently not given. Possibly this was
often a deliberate omission from minutes or reports to avoid poaching before
a herd had become well established. The first liberation, reputed to have
been in 1851, consisted of a solitary red deer stag released in the bills
behind Nelson. This animal originated as a gift from an English park herd
and had been accom計anied by a hind which died during the voyage out. Over
the ensuing 70 years there were further liberations throughout the country
with stock from England, Scotland, and Australia. In addition many
accli衫atisadon societies set up elaborate game farms for the sole purpose
of breeding deer for distribution. Of all the deer introduced into New
Zealand, the red deer are the most numerous and widespread. They are found
in most forested land and in the tussock high country from Stewart Island in
the south to the Kaimal Range in the north. Their spread and increase after
introduction was rapid, favoured by a congenial climate, ample food, total
protection, and no natural enemies. Runholders were soon complaining of
deer competing with domestic stock for feed, and acclimatisation societies,
which supervised deer herds in the early days, were obliged to under負ake
cubing. The forestry branch of the Department of Lands and Survey had to
conduct control operations to prevent damage by deer to young pine
plantations as early as 1909. National surveys revealed widespread damage
to protective vegeta負ion clothing hill and mountain country and the need
for drastic reduc負ion in deer numbers, red deer being the most prevalent.
As a result of these findings the protection which all deer had hitherto
enjoyed cease and operations by the deer control section of the Department
of Internal Affairs began in 1931. Since then more than a rniwon deer have
been shot by Government hunters. In addition over 100,000 deer are killed
annually by sportsmen and commercial meat hunters. Herds have been heavily
reduced in more accessible areas and hunters must now enter remote country
for animals of trophy class. (L H Harris 1973)
Sulla
said:
>
>"Sulla" <c...@jhug.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:svu8ftcjpdsqtd4pu...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 3 May 2001 09:10:32 +1200, "Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@wave.co.nz>
>> said:
>>
>> >
>> >If firearms were made illegal in this country the whole agricultural base
>> >would be destroyed as would the native forests.
>>
>> That's almost the funniest thing I have ever heard. I lived for 20 years
>in
>> a farming & forestry community, and can say categorically that guns were
>NOT
>> used for pest control. Night rabbit shoots were a once a year sport, like
>> duck shooting. Shooting possums was a teenage ritual. But effective: no
>way.
>
>You might have lived there but with your attitude I doubt that there was any
>significant communication between you and the farming and forestry
>communities.
>
What is the problem with my attitude?
And there were no deer, chamois, wild pig were rare, goats were few and far
between, possums were poisoned,
But I shouldn't go on, the blind cannot see.
My point is, guns were not necessary to avoid a collapse of the local
farming community, or export industry.