This is what happens when governments try to ban guns
Diesel
By Mark Steyn
(Filed: 05/01/2003)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;?xml=/opinion/2003/01/05/do050
2.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2003/01/05/ixopinion.html
You would think if "gun control" was going to work anywhere it would be on a
small island. Particularly a small island at whose ports of entry the
zealots of HM Customs like nothing better than performing intimate cavity
searches on the off-chance you've got an extra bottle of duty-free
Beaujolais tucked away up there. Surely, if you also had a Walther PPK
parked out of sight, these exhaustive inspectors would be the first to
notice.
But apparently not. Since the Government's "total ban" five years ago, there
are more and more guns being used by more and more criminals in more and
more crimes. Now, in the wake of Birmingham's New Year bloodbath, there are
calls for the total ban to be made even more total: if the gangs refuse to
obey the existing laws, we'll just pass more laws for them not to obey.
According to a UN survey from last month, England and Wales now have the
highest crime rate of the world's 20 leading nations. One can query the
methodology of the survey while still recognising the peculiar genius by
which British crime policy has wound up with every indicator going haywire -
draconian gun control plus vastly increased gun violence plus stratospheric
property crime.
What happened at that party in Aston? I don't mean "what happened?" in the
sense of the piercing analysis of Chief Superintendent Dave Shaw, who
concluded: "There has clearly been some sort of dispute which has resulted
in people coming to the premises with guns, discharging their weapons and
causing this incident." You can't put anything over on these coppers, can
you? But my question is directed at the broader meaning of the event. Chief
Supt Shaw went on: "We have never had to deal with anything like this. In
terms of the nature of the incident, it's almost unprecedented in
Birmingham." He didn't quite say Birmingham is one of those bucolic
tightly-knit communities where everyone in the village knows everyone else
and no one locks their doors, but you get the drift: this is some sort of
bizarre aberration.
I think not. When those young men decided to open fire in Birchfield Road,
they were making an entirely rational decision. One reason why Chief Supt
Shaw has "never had to deal with anything like this" is because Aston was
long ago ceded to the gangs. And, if you can deal drugs with impunity and
burgle with impunity and assault with impunity and use guns with impunity,
who's to say you can't murder with impunity? The West Midlands Police have
offered a reward of £1,000 for information leading to the arrest of those
involved. Think about that: would you name a known gang member for a
thousand quid? Once the funerals have been held and the media's moved on,
the constabulary will go back to forgetting about Aston. But you'll still
have to live there.
When Dunblane occurred, all of us - even, if they're honest with themselves,
the shrieking hysterics baying for pointless legislation - understood it was
a freak event: a nut went nuts. It happens, and, when it does, the event has
no broader implications. But what happened in Birchfield Road is of wider
relevance: it's a glimpse of the day after tomorrow - not just in Aston, but
in Edgbaston and Solihull and Leamington Spa.
After Dunblane, the police and politicians lapsed into their default
position: it's your fault. We couldn't do anything about him, so we'll do
something about you. You had your mobile nicked? You must be mad taking it
out. Why not just keep it inside nice and safe on the telephone table? Had
your car radio pinched? You shouldn't have left it in the car. House
burgled? You should have had laser alarms and window bars installed. You did
have laser alarms and window bars but they waited till you were home, kicked
the door in and beat you up? You should have an armour-plated door and
digital retinal-scan technology. It's your fault, always. The monumentally
useless British police, with greater manpower per capita on higher rates of
pay and with far more lavish resources than the Americans, haven't had an
original idea in decades, so they cling ever more fiercely to their core
ideology: the best way to deal with criminals is to impose ever greater
restrictions and inconveniences on the law-abiding.
The gangs on Birmingham's streets instinctively understand this. They know,
even if the Government doesn't, that the Blairite "total" ban, which sounds
so butch and macho when you do your soundbite on the telly, is a cop-out: it
makes the general population the target, not the criminals. And once that
happens it's always easier to hassle the cranky farmer with the unlicensed
shotgun than the Yardies with the Uzis. When you disarm the citizenry, when
you prosecute them for being so foolish as to believe they have a right to
self-defence, when you issue warnings that they should "walk on by" if they
happen to see a burglary or rape in progress, the main beneficiaries will
obviously be the criminals. Aston is the logical reductio of British
policing: rival bad guys with state-of-the-art hardware, a cowed populace,
and a remote constabulary tucked up in bed with the answering machine on.
I see I haven't yet mentioned the touchy social factor which even squeamish
British Lefties have been forced to confront: Aston is yet more
"black-on-black" violence. The reason I haven't mentioned it is because
there hardly seems any point. What's new? Canada also had a Dunblane-like
massacre, followed by Dunblane-like legislation, and, like Birmingham,
boring, bland Toronto has lately been riven by gun violence from - wait for
it - Jamaican gangs. But in neither Britain nor Canada is it politically
feasible to suggest that perhaps Jamaicans should be subjected to special
immigration scrutiny. As it happens, that Canadian massacre, of Montreal
female students 12 years ago, was committed by the son of an Algerian Muslim
wife-beater, but, although we all claim to be interested in the "root
causes" of crime, they tend to involve awkward cultural judgments. It's
easier, like Mr Blair, just to go "total": blame everyone, ban everything.
This basic approach of addressing any cultural factors apart from the ones
that correlate was pioneered by American progressives. The corpulent
provocateur Michael Moore, in his film Bowling for Columbine, currently
delighting British audiences, spends an entire feature-length documentary
investigating the "culture" of American gun violence without mentioning that
blacks, who make up 13 per cent of the population, account for over half the
murders (and murder victims, too). Once you factor them out, Americans kill
at about the same rate as nancy-boy Canadians.
But, as I said, it's hardly worth mentioning in relation to Britain. In my
part of New Hampshire, we're all armed to the hilt and any gangster who
fancied holding up a gas station would be quickly ventilated by guys whose
pick-ups are better equipped than most EU armies. The right of individual
self-defence deters crime, constrains it, prevents it from spreading out of
the drug-infested failed jurisdictions. In post-Dunblane, post-Tony Martin
Britain, that constraint doesn't exist: that's why the Royal Borough of
Kensington and Chelsea now has a higher crime rate than Harlem.
Meanwhile, America's traditionally high and England and Wales's
traditionally low murder rates are remorselessly converging. In 1981, the US
rate was nine times higher than the English. By 1995, it was six times. Last
year, it was down to 3.5. Given that US statistics, unlike the British ones,
include manslaughter and other lesser charges, the real rate is much closer.
New York has just recorded the lowest murder rate since the 19th century.
I'll bet that in the next two years London's murder rate overtakes it.
AW Barton
news:3e1e39ae$0$10023$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> This is what happens when governments try to ban guns
>
> By Mark Steyn
> (Filed: 05/01/2003)
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;?xml=/opinion/2003/01/05/do050
> 2.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2003/01/05/ixopinion.html
>
> You would think if "gun control" was going to work anywhere it would be on a
> small island. Particularly a small island at whose ports of entry the
> zealots of HM Customs like nothing better than performing intimate cavity
> searches on the off-chance you've got an extra bottle of duty-free
> Beaujolais tucked away up there. Surely, if you also had a Walther PPK
> parked out of sight, these exhaustive inspectors would be the first to
> notice.
>
> But apparently not. Since the Government's "total ban" five years ago, there
> are more and more guns being used by more and more criminals in more and
> more crimes. Now, in the wake of Birmingham's New Year bloodbath, there are
> calls for the total ban to be made even more total: if the gangs refuse to
> obey the existing laws, we'll just pass more laws for them not to obey.
> According to a UN survey from last month, England and Wales now have the
> highest crime rate of the world's 20 leading nations. One can query the
> methodology of the survey while still recognising the peculiar genius by
> which British crime policy has wound up with every indicator going haywire -
> draconian gun control plus vastly increased gun violence plus stratospheric
> property crime.
Criminals don't take any notice of the law.
The only people to suffer under the total handgun ban are those that used
handguns for target shooting legally.
It just goes to show how fucking stupid Blair, Blunkett & co are.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.437 / Virus Database: 245 - Release Date: 06-Jan-03
scott
protect yourselves from nutters who have guns. In Oz, it's tricky, very
tricky, for nutters to get guns. Some crims will be able to get guns, but
having no guns means that angry/depressed/high people can't just grab a gun
and go shoot people they don't like. You can't just go on an unpre-meditated
attack.
Tom Woodley
"scott" <n...@nah.com> wrote in message
news:O7wT9.19803$oS1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
You are speaking crap, sport. You clearly know nothing of the situation in
Australia.
Diesel
pull your head out of your ass.
Diesel
Old and Cranky
That is much better than the USA wherer an equivalent 150M would have guns.
"Diesel" <diesello...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e1e9af4$0$27993$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Tom S.
"Old and Cranky" <Oldand...@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:fpxT9.20012$oS1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> No Diesel,
>
> That is much better than the USA wherer an equivalent 150M would have
guns.
>
Well, if you're content to be a subject and a servant, have at it.
scott
Tom Woodley <twoo...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:3HwT9.19856$oS1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> You are speaking crap, sport. You clearly know nothing of the situation in
> Australia.
>
The majority don't want guns, as indicated by the massive popularity of
Howard's gun-law reforms after Port Arthur in 96.
RT
Tom Woodley wrote in message
<3HwT9.19856$oS1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
>
>"scott" <n...@nah.com> wrote in message
>news:O7wT9.19803$oS1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Australia has no guns and we love it! The only reason y'all have guns is
>to
>> protect yourselves from nutters who have guns. In Oz, it's tricky, very
>> tricky, for nutters to get guns. Some crims will be able to get guns, but
>> having no guns means that angry/depressed/high people can't just grab a
>gun
>> and go shoot people they don't like. You can't just go on an
>unpre-meditated
>> attack.
Hate to rain on your parade, but there have ALWAYS been more attacks,
including murders, with knives than guns in Oz.
>You are speaking crap, sport. You clearly know nothing of the situation in
>Australia.
Dead right. There are some bloody ignoramuses around (including the
religious fanatic who wore a bulky bullet-proof vest to a meeting of
shooters, any of whom could have dotted his "i's" from 200m)
> > In Oz, it's tricky, very tricky, for nutters to get guns.
Er. Yeah. Right. Which is why the Port Arthur massacre was carried out
using a semi-auto .223 that was surrendered to the Victorian Police some
time before. Care to explain that?
Which is why you can buy anything you like in nearly any town in Oz.
Which is why the WA police confiscated a Street Sweeper from the bikies in
Perth - and the Street Sweeper has ALWAYS been a banned import (it's a
semi-auto 12ga shottie with a drum magazine made in South Africa).
Which is why there was a shoot-out between bikie gangs in Mackay (Qld) which
involved both pistols and semi-auto rifles. (Erm.. it was a slight
disagreement about who was going to control the drugs and prostitution in
that area)
Which is why, after wasting 500 M$ munching up legally held rifles and
shotties, the TOTAL number crushed was less than **1/3rd** of the number of
ONE type of semi-auto rifle imported into Oz (AK-47 and Chinese equivalent).
Which is why the police station in Sydney was brassed up by assorted dudes
using semi-auto 9mms.
Which is why in Birmingham, UK, where there is a total ban on firearms, 5
teenagers were shot in the cross-fire outside a night club between two gangs
recently - both mobs using pistols and one suspected of being fully
automatic.
Getta bloody grip.
But look on the bright side - you're probably one of the few people old
enough to post that still believes in the Tooth Fairy.
Idiot.
Tom Woodley
Meanwhile the nearly 1,000,000 legal gun owners here will continue to enjoy
our shooting, and criminals will continue to get guns with the greatest of
ease.
iCentral
--
32112966
Brisbane City Store,
269 Edward Street, Brisbane City
www.i-central.com.au
Store ICQ: 70438632
Fax: 30030735
Email: itsal...@i-central.com.au
MSN: weareso...@hotmail.com
"Tom S." <sn...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:urxT9.2965$kF3.3...@news2.west.cox.net...
Karl Hungus
"iCentral" <icen...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:3e1ed4a4$0$27997$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> I want guns.
Then you're in the right place my friend! Why, here in the US of A, we have
a Constitutional right to.......
Wait a minute, you're Australian, aren't you?
My condolences....
Morton Davis
"iCentral" <icen...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:3e1ed4a4$0$27997$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> I want guns.
>
Make them. It's easy.
-*MORT*-
Keith A Flick
news:p4qt1vsba4rgr88ln...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 14:38:42 GMT, "Karl Hungus" <karlh...@attbi.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Then you're in the right place my friend! Why, here in the US of A, we
have
> >a Constitutional right to.......
> >
> >Wait a minute, you're Australian, aren't you?
> >
> >My condolences....
>
> next door DOESN'T have an arsenal next door ready to loose on you one
> day when he had a really bad day at the office.
You mean to say this is the behavior that the average Australian
would exhibit if he had access to arms? Your death rate from
firearms must have been horrendous before you restricted them.
If you mean that the rare and unusual Australian would behave
this way, do you think the law will keep such a person from
getting a firearm?
> It's all well and good to go on about "rights" but what happens with
> your "rights" cancel out the rights of others?
A right cannot cancel out someone else's right.
If you believe so, at least one of the things you
believe to be a right isn't.
> I really love the huffing and puffing from gun supporters acting like
> everyone here in Australia is all miserable about depravation of guns,
> when the newspoll a couple of months ago had 83% supporting EVEN
> TIGHTER gun laws.
>
> It's all well and good to say you hate the gun laws, but don't try and
> claim "Australia" hates them, because we (as a whole) do not.
I haven't heard anyone claim such a thing. I have heard people
claim that the majority support many laws that make themselves
less safe in the belief that they are protected by those laws.
Roger Dewhurst
"RT" <r.th...@cqu.edu.au> wrote in message
news:avmapf$5nm$1...@spider.cqu.edu.au...
Would that be the australian pygmy?
>
> > > In Oz, it's tricky, very tricky, for nutters to get guns.
>
> Er. Yeah. Right. Which is why the Port Arthur massacre was
carried out
> using a semi-auto .223 that was surrendered to the Victorian
Police some
> time before. Care to explain that?
Isn't the fellow in jail left handed while the shooter in the
restaurant was right handed?
Were there not a few other difficulties too? One being that he
was seen somewhere else.
Oh yes. And who was that Australian politician who said that
there would have to be a massacre in Tasmania befor the gun laws
could be changed?
R
Tom Woodley
"Mike Price" <mi...@NOSPAmiinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:p4qt1vsba4rgr88ln...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 14:38:42 GMT, "Karl Hungus" <karlh...@attbi.com>
> wrote:
> Yep, here we have the right to sleep at night knowing that Joe Average
> next door DOESN'T have an arsenal next door ready to loose on you one
> day when he had a really bad day at the office.
>
in Australia, with some real evidence if you please.
Otherwise take your paranoia somewhere else and stop trying to impose your
twisted views on the law abiding shooters of the Australian community.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
I hadn't heard this. Can you give me any further info? or pointers to
where I can find more info? Thanks.
> Which is why you can buy anything you like in nearly any town in Oz.
>
> Which is why the WA police confiscated a Street Sweeper from the bikies in
> Perth - and the Street Sweeper has ALWAYS been a banned import (it's a
> semi-auto 12ga shottie with a drum magazine made in South Africa).
>
> Which is why there was a shoot-out between bikie gangs in Mackay (Qld) which
> involved both pistols and semi-auto rifles. (Erm.. it was a slight
> disagreement about who was going to control the drugs and prostitution in
> that area)
>
> Which is why, after wasting 500 M$ munching up legally held rifles and
> shotties, the TOTAL number crushed was less than **1/3rd** of the number of
> ONE type of semi-auto rifle imported into Oz (AK-47 and Chinese equivalent).
>
> Which is why the police station in Sydney was brassed up by assorted dudes
> using semi-auto 9mms.
>
> Which is why in Birmingham, UK, where there is a total ban on firearms, 5
> teenagers were shot in the cross-fire outside a night club between two gangs
> recently - both mobs using pistols and one suspected of being fully
> automatic.
>
> Getta bloody grip.
>
> But look on the bright side - you're probably one of the few people old
> enough to post that still believes in the Tooth Fairy.
>
> Idiot.
>
>
The ability of the hoplophobes to believe that banning guns, will
somehow remove them from criminals, would be amusing, if it weren't so
sad.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+H0JGd90bcYOAWPYRAunUAJ9NI7Z3+dhHt/USRjc9XV51TGOfdgCgzpwz
hyxA67IrlY/B/tGi9kJSgJA=
=0B1w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
A bad day, is when aliens attack, the dog bites you, and your boss tells
you that the new client wants to make a few changes before delivery.
Linux, super computers, office computers, or home computers, it works.
Roger Dewhurst
"Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@NOSPAM.wave.co.nz> wrote in message
news:avn63k$hpp$1...@news.wave.co.nz...
http://www.overflow.net.au/~nedwood/portarthur.html
R
>
>
>
>
Roger Dewhurst
"Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@NOSPAM.wave.co.nz> wrote in message
news:avn63k$hpp$1...@news.wave.co.nz...
>
SPRINGFIELD "SIMULATOR" PROVES PORT ARTHUR A FAKE
* Copyright Joe Vialls - 16/11/97 - All Rights Reserved, 45
Merlin Drive, Carine, Western Australia 6020
In this series of reports the author has continually claimed that
military science proves intellectually-impaired Martin Bryant was
incapable of conducting the incredibly efficient massacre at Port
Arthur, though some details of military science are classified
and have not been released to the public.
The recent mass shooting in the Thurston School Cafe in
Springfield, Oregon USA, makes the release of sensitive
information unnecessary. A direct comparison between Springfield
and Port Arthur proves once and for all time that the shooter in
the Broad Arrow Cafe on 28th April 1996, was not Martin Bryant,
but a highly trained professional marksman.
When the military needs to prove a scientific point one way or
the other, it invariably tests that point for real, either in
combat or by artificial simulation. A good example of this was
the recent reaction of the US military to Federal Government
claims that the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City was
blown up by a 2000 pound low- explosive ammonium nitrate weapon,
allegedly parked outside the front door of the building by young
Timothy McVeigh.
Knowing the ammonium nitrate claim was impossible rubbish, United
States Air Force explosives experts at Eglin Air Force Base in
Florida, promptly constructed a three story test building out of
the same materials used in the Alfred P. Murrah federal building
in Oklahoma. Then they placed the correct equivalent explosive
charge at precisely the same distance from their test building
and stood back briefly to admire their "simulator". And what a
simulator it was! When the massive charge was detonated on camera
the results were exactly as the explosives experts had forecast:
the huge open-air blast barely scratched the front face of the
building, proving for all time that the White House, FBI, and
others in Washington, had deliberately and continually lied about
the explosion in Oklahoma City, and of course about "patsy"
Timothy McVeigh as well, for political reasons.
The comprehensive results of these scientific tests were printed
in a report titled the "Eglin Blast Effects Study" (EBES), a copy
of which was forwarded by the commanding general to Senator Trent
Lott, majority leader of the US Senate. In a covering letter the
general urged Senator Lott to resist White House calls to bring
in new counter- terrorist legislation, which if passed would have
given federal agencies such as the FBI and BATF new draconian
powers over American citizens.
You didn't read about the EBES in your newspaper? This is not
surprising, because Eglin's scientific work would have destroyed
the Government's lying hype about Oklahoma at a single stroke.
And so it is with Port Arthur. The military, this time special
forces, could easily prove that Martin Bryant was incapable of
achieving the stunning kill rates exhibited in the Broad Arrow
Cafe, but are unable to do so because the required facilities
i.e. simulators used to train counter-terrorist marksmen in
enclosed space operations, are shrouded in secrecy for obvious
reasons.
The SAS, GSG9, and others are not enthusiastic about public
demonstrations. But a recent mass shooting in Springfield, USA,
provided a chillingly live simulation of enclosed space
operations in a cage very similar to the Broad Arrow. In order to
understand how a simulation on the other side of the world proves
Port Arthur a pre- meditated covert action conducted by experts,
it is first necessary to gain a basic knowledge of enclosed space
simulators. Special forces simulators are normally used to
literally simulate an environment in which counter-terrorist
marksmen might be required to operate, usually a room or rooms of
known dimensions, containing both terrorists and hostages.
Immediately on entry the special forces marksmen must kill or
disable the terrorists but leave the hostages unharmed: a task
calling for split-second timing and accurate point shooting. In a
murky simulator where the difference between life and death can
be as little as 1/10th of a second there is no time to use gun
sights.
Point and shoot, point and shoot. With luck the terrorists will
die from bullet wounds to the head, but if the counter-terrorist
marksman makes a single split-second error of judgment he will
surely die instead. To evaluate scientifically whether an amateur
like Bryant could equal the very high killed-to-wounded ratio
(KTIR) achieved in the Broad Arrow Cafe, the instructors would
arrange dummies inside the simulator in the same configuration as
the victims on the day. Next an unskilled amateur would be
equipped with a Colt AR15, two clips of ammunition and other
essential items, before being told he had "X" seconds from point
of entry to shoot dead twenty of the victim dummies with single
shots to the head, and wounds twelve more, with only 29 rounds.
This would be quite impossible for the amateur, as the simulation
would prove scientifically.
The biggest drawback would be the amateur's complete inability to
point shoot instinctively, essential in this enclosed
environment. The shooter in the Broad Arrow Cafe at Port Arthur
demonstrated all of the qualities of a trained counter-terrorist
marksman but made no amateur mistakes. Always in motion and point
shooting from the right hip with devastating accuracy, he killed
twenty of the occupants with single shots to the head and wounded
twelve more, firing a total of only 29 rounds. Using known
techniques reported by witnesses, he ensured his own safety from
attack by turning on the spot and staying outside grappling
range. It was an awesome display of expertise, even by special
forces standards. That he was point shooting from the hip is
beyond question. The Colt AR15 allegedly used in the massacre was
fitted with a wide-angle telescope sight designed for the
Armalite AR180, mounted on the AR15 so crudely that it completely
obscured the "iron" sights on top of the weapon. Thus the iron
sights could not be used at all, and the range was much too short
to use the telescopic sight. Remember that the shooter knew this
before he entered the Broad Arrow Cafe, so must have been
supremely confident in his point shooting ability. Sadly, his
confidence was more than justified. To accuse
intellectually-impaired Martin Bryant of this stunning
performance was quite absurd, a point clearly shared by police
interrogators on the 4th July 1996, who openly queried Bryant's
shooting skills, with special reference to point shooting i.e.
firing the Colt AR15 from the hip:-
Police: "And ahh, did you ever practice shooting from the hip?"
Bryant: "No never."
Police: "Did you get pretty accurate?"
Bryant: "No not really."
Naturally enough the police had no access to counter-terrorist
simulators and probably lacked the firearms experience to work
out that Martin Bryant was completely incapable of executing the
gross crimes of which he stood accused.
But unknown to police at that time, two years later 15 year-old
Kip Kinkel was to stage a mass shooting in an identical
environment, firing a semi-automatic weapon of the same calibre
(5.56-mm). Kinkel's performance in the Thurston High School Cafe
was exactly what any expert would expect from a random shooting
event, and proves that Bryant could not have caused the terrible
carnage in the Broad Arrow Cafe. Again sadly, Kip Kinkel provided
the perfect "live" cafe simulation needed to prove Martin
Bryant's innocence at Port Arthur.
Kinkel's choice of a cafe for his mass shooting may well have
been influenced by the massive international publicity about the
Broad Arrow Cafe at Port Arthur in Tasmania, and he may have
expected to achieve the same spectacular results. His extensive
weaponry further indicates a possible "copy cat" event.
Kip Kinkel was carrying a 5.56-mm Ruger semi-automatic rifle with
several full clips of ammunition, plus two loaded handguns and a
large hunting knife. In addition police found a sizable quantity
of loose 5.56-mm rounds in his haversack. Multiple weapons and
bags of loose ammo were notable media "features" at Port Arthur.
Within seconds of entering the school cafe and opening fire on
his fellow students, Kinkel must have realised that he was simply
not in the same class as the professional shooter at Port Arthur.
Despite firing fifty one rounds, nearly twice as many as those
fired in the Broad Arrow Cafe, Kinkel killed only two and wounded
another twenty one. Of the two dead, only one was hit in the
head. Nor did he have the expertise to keep his fellow students
at bay. While fumbling a clip-change on the 5.56-mm Ruger he was
overpowered and brought to the ground. Killer Kinkel had done his
murderous best, but it was a best that fell far short of the very
professional massacre in the Broad Arrow cafe two years before.
In the Broad Arrow Cafe twenty were killed and twelve wounded,
while in the Thurston School Cafe two were killed and twenty-one:
wounded. So in the Broad Arrow Cafe the shooter scored an
incredible inverted killed-to-injured ratio (KTIR) of 1.66 to 1,
on a par with the best special forces counter-terrorist marksmen
in the world.
In the Thurston School Cafe, Kinkel scored a KTIR? of 1 to 10,
entirely in accord with random shootings worldwide. Remember once
again that every one of the twenty dead in the Broad Arrow Cafe
was killed with an accurate single shot to the head, an almost
impossible achievement. No doubt psychiatrists and other
government apologists will cry "foul" at this point and trot out
all kinds of inane academic excuses for the differential in
performance between Springfield and Port Arthur. In reality no
excuses exist. Kinkel was bought firearms and encouraged to use
them by his parents. Bryant was denied firearms and discouraged
to use them by his parents. Kinkel was thus a proven experienced
shot while Bryant was not.
Kinkel was 15 years old and Bryant had an assessed mental age of
13 years at the time of the Port Arthur massacre, giving Kinkel a
two year intellectual edge over Bryant. Any academic or
politician still willing to believe that Martrin Bryant executed
the massacre in the Broad Arrow Cafe, should as a matter of
urgency visit his or her nearest hospital for immediate
psychological assessment. A side issue that has raised its head
from time to time since the author started writing reports on
Port Arthur, is that Martin Bryant was taking the anti-depressant
drug "Prozac", which in some magical way managed to convert him
from an intellectually-impaired invalid into the crack-shot
equivalent of a US Navy SEAL. While there is some evidence
available that Bryant was prescribed tranquilizers long before
the massacre, no evidence has emerged on Prozac, though
interestingly, the Murdoch press announced that Kip Kinkel was
subjected to the drug by his parents: "They were coping with his
bouts of anger by giving him Prozac."
There is no doubt that Prozac is a highly controversial drug,
with more adverse reactions reported to the FDA than any other
drug since that regulatory agency was formed. It is also known
that one of the reported adverse reactions is "rage", but rage
alone cannot turn an average citizen into special forces marksman
material. So while Prozac and others drugs capable of inducing
acute adverse reactions may alter brain chemistry to the point
where the recipient wants to kill people, no drug on earth can
teach the recipient how to kill people. Prozac may or may not
have played a part in triggering Kip Kinkel's killing spree, but
it is a red herring in the case of "patsy" Martin Bryant, who was
completely incapable of conducting the Port Arthur massacre.
Horrific though it was, Kip Kinkel's performance in Springfield
proved Bryant's innocence completely, but this is unlikely to
kick-start Australia's politicians into action. Most in Canberra
stopped worrying about our national security decades ago,
deciding instead to sign multiple United Nations "conventions" on
behalf of all Australians, without bothering to explain to the
voters that 99% of these conventions violate Australian
sovereignty. To the average politician in Canberra nowadays,
Bryant and Port Arthur are of no importance as he or she grovels
before yet another lobby group holding the international purse
strings.
SPRINGFIELD SIMULATOR
DIRECT COMPARISONS CATEGORY,
SCHOOL,
OR STATUS BROAD
ARROW
CAFE THURSTON
CAFE
Weapon class: Semi-auto Semi-auto
Weapon calibre: 5.56-mm 5.56-mm
Spare ammo clips: Yes Yes
Extra weapons: Yes Yes
Total rounds fired: 29 51
Total fatalities: 20 2
Total head shots: 20 1
Total injured: 12 21
Shooter disabled: No Yes
Killed-to-injured: 1.66 to 1 1 to 10
Now might be the time for a gently warning. Even the most
friendly media polls indicate that a significant minority of
Australians are fed up to the back teeth with fat-cats in
Canberra feathering their own nests while ignoring Australian
national security. When the truth about the Port Arthur operation
finally fights its way up to greater public consciousness, as it
most surely will, many of those complacent fat-cats will find
themselves at the back of a very long dole queue. The only way to
delay the inevitable is to order a Royal Commission into Port
Arthur. Quickly.
Otto Von Bismarck
> I want guns.
Why? Do you need them to make up for your small penis?
The CO
<SNIP>
> SPRINGFIELD "SIMULATOR" PROVES PORT ARTHUR A FAKE
*BOGGLE*
> * Copyright Joe Vialls - 16/11/97 - All Rights Reserved, 45
> Merlin Drive, Carine, Western Australia 6020
>
> In this series of reports the author has continually claimed that
> military science proves intellectually-impaired Martin Bryant was
> incapable of conducting the incredibly efficient massacre at Port
> Arthur, though some details of military science are classified
> and have not been released to the public.
<reams of fruit loop conspiracy bullshit deleted in the interests of
reducing nausea>
Just when I thought the maximum level of stupidity had been reached, some
moron
goes on a one man crusade to prove that the govt used a professional shooter
to
stage Port Arthur.
Neverheard so much bullshit in my life. I thought the yanks had a monopoly
on crazed
conspiracy theories like this. Apparently it's contagious.
The real reason so many died at the hands of one man? BECAUSE NO ONE ELSE
WAS
ARMED. If there had been just ONE armed guard or citizen there, the nutcase
would probably
have been shot within a relatively short time.
My position on guns should be clear from this, but let me spell it out
anyway. I am not a big fan
of the US NRA, they have some ideas that are a bit extreme. However they
have a well known
slogan, and corny as it sounds, I think it is true none the less. "When
guns are outlawed, only outlaws
will have guns" We seem to be heading down this road. The theory most
anti gun people have is that
the police are there to protect us. Guess what? They aren't. The Police
themselves will say that they are
not in the business of stopping people breaking the law, oh they'll provide
advice and so forth on crime prevention
and reduction, and if they happen to be in the right place, at the right
time, they will step in certainly,
but realistically, they are the ones who come along after the event to pick
up the bodies, count the holes
and then see if there is someone that can be charged and prosecuted. This
will not help you while you are cooling off
in your coffin because an asian street gang were having a firefight with
their illegally imported black market chinese Glock
clones and you got in the way. Or someone invaded your home armed with a
sawn off and decided to rape your children
and you tried to stop him.
The social contract between the Police/Govt and the population appears to
have failed. The Police cannot protect us and though
we theoretically have the right to self defence, we are forbidden the means
to defend ourselves against armed criminals who don't
care about the law..
The CO
Roger Dewhurst
"The CO" <as...@somewhere.in.oz.au> wrote in message
news:d1KT9.9$dP4....@vicpull1.telstra.net...
>
> "Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@NOSPAM.wave.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:avnnrl$mas$1...@news.wave.co.nz...
> <SNIP>
>
>>
reached, some
> moron
> goes on a one man crusade to prove that the govt used a
professional shooter
> to
> stage Port Arthur.
How do you deal with certain facts such as:
The total lack of forensic evidence associating Bryant with the
killing.
The lack of any identification of Bryant at the scene of the
crime.
The identification of him somewhere else at the time.
The failure to identify Bryant at the scene by someone who did
know him.
The rifles recovered from the house near which Bryant was
arrested could not have been fired because parts were missing and
they had been blown up. One of these appears to have been handed
in at an arms amnesty earlier and in another state.
Bryant is left handed. The shooter in the restaurant was right
handed.
Then of course was the abnormal treatment of Bryant after his
arrest.
Why was there no proper trial.
Why were the key witnesses never called?
In the restaurant Bryant is alleged to have killed 20 with head
shots and wounded 12 more, all with 29 bullets.
It is also alleged that he failed to hit a single policeman when
firing some 300 rounds from the house somewhat later. If he was
good enough to kill 20 with 29 shots firing right handed from the
hip how is it that he was unable to hit a single policeman wirth
300 bullets of aimed fire?
An IQ of 66 and a total lack of experience might explain the
latter, but not the former.
Why should we be surprised that a government might organize this
event? The French president ordered the destruction of a ship in
New Zealand waters and the murder that resulted. Just look what
other politicians around the world are upto? Why doubt their
capability to kill a few tourists for political ends for one
moment?
R
The CO
>
> "The CO" <as...@somewhere.in.oz.au> wrote in message
> news:d1KT9.9$dP4....@vicpull1.telstra.net...
> >
> > "Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@NOSPAM.wave.co.nz> wrote in message
> > news:avnnrl$mas$1...@news.wave.co.nz...
<SNIP>
> How do you deal with certain facts such as:
> The total lack of forensic evidence associating Bryant with the
> killing.
Such as? And your source for claiming this please.
> The lack of any identification of Bryant at the scene of the
> crime.
By who? The ones he shot? Or the ones who got away? I doubt any of them
took the time to draw an identikit. Traumatised people often can't remember
details
until much later, and even then they sometimes have blank spots.
> The identification of him somewhere else at the time.
Mistaken identity, if that actually occurred, or mixed up times. Any one of
several possibilities including someone trying to alibi him.
> The failure to identify Bryant at the scene by someone who did
> know him.
Under the circumstances, not surprising. Traumatic events have that effect
on people.
> The rifles recovered from the house near which Bryant was
> arrested could not have been fired because parts were missing and
> they had been blown up.
At least one was.
> One of these appears to have been handed in at an arms amnesty earlier
and in another state.
It was. So? Quite a few got handed in and found their way back into the
system at the time.
Stupid perhaps, but not sinister in the sense you mean.
> Bryant is left handed. The shooter in the restaurant was right
> handed.
Many possibilities.
> Then of course was the abnormal treatment of Bryant after his
> arrest.
Abnormal how? You make allegations, you provide the evidence.
> Why was there no proper trial.
AFAIK, there was. Again, what do your 'sources' reckon made it improper>
You make a lot of baseless accusations. I don't have to prove anything, you
are the one making the loopy claims, you prove it.
> Why were the key witnesses never called?
> In the restaurant Bryant is alleged to have killed 20 with head
> shots and wounded 12 more, all with 29 bullets.
At short range it's quite feasible that one round could hit more than one
person in a crowded place.
> It is also alleged that he failed to hit a single policeman when
> firing some 300 rounds from the house somewhat later. If he was
> good enough to kill 20 with 29 shots firing right handed from the
> hip how is it that he was unable to hit a single policeman wirth
> 300 bullets of aimed fire?
Because point blank in a crowded room was easier than a range that needed
some skills?
> An IQ of 66 and a total lack of experience might explain the
> latter, but not the former.
Is that an expert opinion? I know a 24year old with an IQ of 70, and he not
only has a firearms license, he knows how to shoot quite well. In a casual
conversation,
you would probably not identify him as mildly retarded. I think you put way
too much
emphasis on his IQ score. How old was that IQ score by the way?
> Why should we be surprised that a government might organize this
> event?
Gee, let's see. It would have been seriously criminal and subject anyone
involved to the risk of life in prison. It would destroy the govt and/or
the pollies
involved (which would have had to include Ministers and PM to get some thing
like that off
the ground, with no real benefit that could not be obtained by other means.
Banning semi-autos
is not a big enough gain.
The chances of pulling it off without something coming unstuck are not good,
the risk would be incredibly high, espeically with someone like Bryant in
the mix. I can't
imagine an Army shooter cold enough to shoot a 3 year old girl's parents,
then chase her
down to a hiding spot and kill her as well. The chances of him getting a
case of conscience
afterwards are too high, and the chances of him getting cold feet at the
last minute also high. You would
have also needed the full cooperation of the Police, numerous agents etc to
do your so called recon
prior to the event and doubtless a whole bunch involved in getting your
fictitious shooter in and
out in such a way that Bryant was left to take the rap.
Too hard, not enough gain to make it worthwhile, even assuming a total lack
of morals, which I
suggest is not the case anyway. Howard is not the kind of person that could
order or condone
something like this.
>The French president ordered the destruction of a ship in
> New Zealand waters and the murder that resulted.
The French Secret Service did that. I don't recall if the President knew
about it until after the fact. That's the French anyway, this has no
relevance to whether
we would do something like that to OUR OWN people.
> Just look what other politicians around the world are up to?
And your point is?
> Why doubt their capability to kill a few tourists for political ends for
> one moment?
Because our political leadership, no matter what you might think of their
policies, are not criminals, which you automagically assume of anyone in
politics.
There is a universe of difference between bending the rules about a phone
card
and a national conspiracy to commit mass murder.
And for what? So they could ban semi auto rifles? The goal is not worth
either
the risk or the cost.
The CO
The Raven
>
> "Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@NOSPAM.wave.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:avo2on$osu$1...@news.wave.co.nz...
> >
> > "The CO" <as...@somewhere.in.oz.au> wrote in message
> > news:d1KT9.9$dP4....@vicpull1.telstra.net...
> > >
> > > "Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@NOSPAM.wave.co.nz> wrote in message
> > > news:avnnrl$mas$1...@news.wave.co.nz...
> <SNIP>
>
> > How do you deal with certain facts such as:
>
> > The total lack of forensic evidence associating Bryant with the
> > killing.
>
> Such as? And your source for claiming this please.
>
> > The lack of any identification of Bryant at the scene of the
> > crime.
>
> By who? The ones he shot? Or the ones who got away? I doubt any of them
> took the time to draw an identikit. Traumatised people often can't
remember
> details
> until much later, and even then they sometimes have blank spots.
Wasn't he arrested at the site?
>
> > The identification of him somewhere else at the time.
>
> Mistaken identity, if that actually occurred, or mixed up times. Any one
of
> several possibilities including someone trying to alibi him.
>
> > The failure to identify Bryant at the scene by someone who did
> > know him.
>
> Under the circumstances, not surprising. Traumatic events have that
effect
> on people.
What's the chance anyone there knew him?
>
> > The rifles recovered from the house near which Bryant was
> > arrested could not have been fired because parts were missing and
> > they had been blown up.
>
> At least one was.
And no evidence to suggest when they were "blown up".
> > One of these appears to have been handed in at an arms amnesty earlier
> and in another state.
> It was. So? Quite a few got handed in and found their way back into the
> system at the time.
> Stupid perhaps, but not sinister in the sense you mean.
>
> > Bryant is left handed. The shooter in the restaurant was right
> > handed.
>
> Many possibilities.
To suggest one obvious one, the weapons may have been right handed models
(as most are).
>
> > Then of course was the abnormal treatment of Bryant after his
> > arrest.
>
> Abnormal how? You make allegations, you provide the evidence.
>
> > Why was there no proper trial.
>
> AFAIK, there was. Again, what do your 'sources' reckon made it improper>
> You make a lot of baseless accusations. I don't have to prove anything,
you
> are the one making the loopy claims, you prove it.
>
> > Why were the key witnesses never called?
>
> > In the restaurant Bryant is alleged to have killed 20 with head
> > shots and wounded 12 more, all with 29 bullets.
>
> At short range it's quite feasible that one round could hit more than one
> person in a crowded place.
Exactly and 29 rounds into a crowded room is likely to result in multiple
hits. 32 hits from 29 isn't unbelievable.
>
> > It is also alleged that he failed to hit a single policeman when
> > firing some 300 rounds from the house somewhat later. If he was
> > good enough to kill 20 with 29 shots firing right handed from the
> > hip how is it that he was unable to hit a single policeman wirth
> > 300 bullets of aimed fire?
>
> Because point blank in a crowded room was easier than a range that needed
> some skills?
IIRC his rifle was cut down which essentially ruined the "semi" component of
it *AND* in cutting it down he most likely destroyed what sights it had
while ruining any range/accuracy.
>
> > An IQ of 66 and a total lack of experience might explain the
> > latter, but not the former.
>
> Is that an expert opinion? I know a 24year old with an IQ of 70, and he
not
> only has a firearms license, he knows how to shoot quite well. In a
casual
> conversation,
> you would probably not identify him as mildly retarded. I think you put
way
> too much
> emphasis on his IQ score. How old was that IQ score by the way?
>
> > Why should we be surprised that a government might organize this
> > event?
>
> Gee, let's see. It would have been seriously criminal and subject anyone
> involved to the risk of life in prison. It would destroy the govt and/or
> the pollies
> involved (which would have had to include Ministers and PM to get some
thing
> like that off
> the ground, with no real benefit that could not be obtained by other
means.
Agreed, he's talking a grand conspiracy involving all levels of the
government and police force. Does anyone think a politician could dream up,
co-ordinate, execute, and cover up such a ridiculous plot? It would require
absolute trust in all parties involved, no chance of that if it involves
politicians.
> Banning semi-autos
> is not a big enough gain.
Not for the risk.
> The chances of pulling it off without something coming unstuck are not
good,
> the risk would be incredibly high, espeically with someone like Bryant in
> the mix.
Exactly, it'd be like bringing in every current affairs host on the
conspiracy.
> I can't
> imagine an Army shooter cold enough to shoot a 3 year old girl's parents,
> then chase her
> down to a hiding spot and kill her as well.
It'd take more than the average Army shooter to take people down at range
while making every shot look like it came from Bryant.
> The chances of him getting a
> case of conscience
> afterwards are too high, and the chances of him getting cold feet at the
> last minute also high. You would
> have also needed the full cooperation of the Police, numerous agents etc
to
> do your so called recon
> prior to the event and doubtless a whole bunch involved in getting your
> fictitious shooter in and
> out in such a way that Bryant was left to take the rap.
> Too hard, not enough gain to make it worthwhile, even assuming a total
lack
> of morals, which I
> suggest is not the case anyway. Howard is not the kind of person that
could
> order or condone
> something like this.
Not even the CIA could pull off such a stunt, even with the full
co-operation of all involved.
>
> >The French president ordered the destruction of a ship in
> > New Zealand waters and the murder that resulted.
>
> The French Secret Service did that. I don't recall if the President knew
> about it until after the fact. That's the French anyway, this has no
> relevance to whether
> we would do something like that to OUR OWN people.
And it's a totally unrelated incident.
>
> > Just look what other politicians around the world are up to?
>
> And your point is?
Irrelevance I suspect.
>
> > Why doubt their capability to kill a few tourists for political ends for
> > one moment?
>
> Because our political leadership, no matter what you might think of their
> policies, are not criminals, which you automagically assume of anyone in
> politics.
> There is a universe of difference between bending the rules about a phone
> card
> and a national conspiracy to commit mass murder.
> And for what? So they could ban semi auto rifles? The goal is not worth
> either
> the risk or the cost.
Exactly. Just about any shooting these days brings out calls for a total gun
ban so, why dream up an incredibly dangerous/stupid scheme that would never
work?
> The CO
iCentral
I mention guns and you hear penis ?
How are we meant to reason with a bunch of closet homosexuals with
absolutely no concept of what we are talking about.
We discuss guns - they think of genitalia.
We mention defence and they think of condoms.
Actually I would like to engage the Mardi Gra in effective enfilade grazing
fire from a defilade position.
Will you be performing this year ?
Note: I'd be careful if I were you, there's a lot of crazy people on these
newsgroups.
You just never know who you are talking to.
You mention wheelie bin and I think of coffin.
t
--
32112966
Brisbane City Store,
269 Edward Street, Brisbane City
www.i-central.com.au
Store ICQ: 70438632
Fax: 30030735
Email: itsal...@i-central.com.au
MSN: weareso...@hotmail.com
"Otto Von Bismarck" <bismar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4de33a52.03011...@posting.google.com...
iCentral
It's great to have a ng where ppl actually know something about the subject.
troy
--
32112966
Brisbane City Store,
269 Edward Street, Brisbane City
www.i-central.com.au
Store ICQ: 70438632
Fax: 30030735
Email: itsal...@i-central.com.au
MSN: weareso...@hotmail.com
"The CO" <as...@somewhere.in.oz.au> wrote in message
news:EeST9.4$IW4....@vicpull1.telstra.net...
The CO
"The Raven" <ws...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:avosaa$i8jlj$1...@ID-137622.news.dfncis.de...
> "The CO" <as...@somewhere.in.oz.au> wrote in message
> news:EeST9.4$IW4....@vicpull1.telstra.net...
> >
> > "Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@NOSPAM.wave.co.nz> wrote in message
> > news:avo2on$osu$1...@news.wave.co.nz...
> > >
> > > "The CO" <as...@somewhere.in.oz.au> wrote in message
> > > news:d1KT9.9$dP4....@vicpull1.telstra.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@NOSPAM.wave.co.nz> wrote in message
> > > > news:avnnrl$mas$1...@news.wave.co.nz...
> > <SNIP>
> >
> > > How do you deal with certain facts such as:
> >
> > > The total lack of forensic evidence associating Bryant with the
> > > killing.
> >
> > Such as? And your source for claiming this please.
> >
> > > The lack of any identification of Bryant at the scene of the
> > > crime.
> >
> > By who? The ones he shot? Or the ones who got away? I doubt any of
them
> > took the time to draw an identikit. Traumatised people often can't
> > remember details until much later, and even then they sometimes have
blank spots.
> Wasn't he arrested at the site?
Yes. Wounded in the process.
> > > The identification of him somewhere else at the time.
> >
> > Mistaken identity, if that actually occurred, or mixed up times. Any
one
> > of several possibilities including someone trying to alibi him.
> >
> > > The failure to identify Bryant at the scene by someone who did
> > > know him.
> >
> > Under the circumstances, not surprising. Traumatic events have that
> > effect on people.
>
> What's the chance anyone there knew him?
According to Roger, one did, but failed to id him as the shooter. Under the
circumstances,
that is not particularly surprising. It'd not exactly an ID parade.
> > > The rifles recovered from the house near which Bryant was
> > > arrested could not have been fired because parts were missing and
> > > they had been blown up.
> >
> > At least one was.
>
> And no evidence to suggest when they were "blown up".
Amongst other things.
> > > One of these appears to have been handed in at an arms amnesty
earlier
> > and in another state.
> > It was. So? Quite a few got handed in and found their way back into
the
> > system at the time.
> > Stupid perhaps, but not sinister in the sense you mean.
> >
> > > Bryant is left handed. The shooter in the restaurant was right
> > > handed.
> >
> > Many possibilities.
>
> To suggest one obvious one, the weapons may have been right handed models
> (as most are).
It was. :^)
<SNIP>
> > > In the restaurant Bryant is alleged to have killed 20 with head
> > > shots and wounded 12 more, all with 29 bullets.
> >
> > At short range it's quite feasible that one round could hit more than
one
> > person in a crowded place.
>
> Exactly and 29 rounds into a crowded room is likely to result in multiple
> hits. 32 hits from 29 isn't unbelievable.
It would be more unbelievable if a high powered weapon in a confined space
with lots of bodies in it DIDN'T result in more than one hit per round.
> > > It is also alleged that he failed to hit a single policeman when
> > > firing some 300 rounds from the house somewhat later. If he was
> > > good enough to kill 20 with 29 shots firing right handed from the
> > > hip how is it that he was unable to hit a single policeman wirth
> > > 300 bullets of aimed fire?
> >
> > Because point blank in a crowded room was easier than a range that
needed
> > some skills?
>
> IIRC his rifle was cut down which essentially ruined the "semi" component
of
> it *AND* in cutting it down he most likely destroyed what sights it had
> while ruining any range/accuracy.
The sights were effectively disabled. The IQ of 66 comes in to play here.
But point blank
from the hip in confined space will get you hits even if you have your eyes
closed I would think.
> > > Why should we be surprised that a government might organize this
> > > event?
> >
> > Gee, let's see. It would have been seriously criminal and subject
anyone
> > involved to the risk of life in prison. It would destroy the govt
and/or
> > the pollies involved (which would have had to include Ministers and PM
to get some
> > thing like that off the ground, with no real benefit that could not be
obtained by other
> > means.
>
> Agreed, he's talking a grand conspiracy involving all levels of the
> government and police force. Does anyone think a politician could dream
up,
> co-ordinate, execute, and cover up such a ridiculous plot? It would
require
> absolute trust in all parties involved, no chance of that if it involves
> politicians.
Not bloody likely.
> > Banning semi-autos
> > is not a big enough gain.
> Not for the risk.
No.
> > The chances of pulling it off without something coming unstuck are not
> >good, the risk would be incredibly high, espeically with someone like
Bryant in
> > the mix.
> Exactly, it'd be like bringing in every current affairs host on the
> conspiracy.
Bryant himself admits to being the shooter. He was wounded and captured at
the scene, armed with the
weapon that did the shooting.
He was a nutcase that went off the deep end. It's worth noting that he was
denied a firearms license.
We're back to the 'Outlaw guns and only outlaws have them" scenario.
> > I can't
> > imagine an Army shooter cold enough to shoot a 3 year old girl's
parents,
> > then chase her down to a hiding spot and kill her as well.
> It'd take more than the average Army shooter to take people down at range
> while making every shot look like it came from Bryant.
Particularly the ones indoors. Good trick if you could do it.
> > The chances of him getting a
> > case of conscience afterwards are too high, and the chances of him
getting cold feet at the
> > last minute also high. You would have also needed the full cooperation
of the Police, numerous agents etc
> > to do your so called recon prior to the event and doubtless a whole
bunch involved in getting your
> > fictitious shooter in and out in such a way that Bryant was left to take
the rap.
> > Too hard, not enough gain to make it worthwhile, even assuming a total
> > lack of morals, which I suggest is not the case anyway. Howard is not
the kind of person that
> > could order or condone something like this.
>
> Not even the CIA could pull off such a stunt, even with the full
> co-operation of all involved.
Not in this country anyway.
> > >The French president ordered the destruction of a ship in
> > > New Zealand waters and the murder that resulted.
> >
> > The French Secret Service did that. I don't recall if the President
knew
> > about it until after the fact. That's the French anyway, this has no
> > relevance to whether
> > we would do something like that to OUR OWN people.
>
> And it's a totally unrelated incident.
Yes. Straw man.
> > > Just look what other politicians around the world are up to?
> >
> > And your point is?
>
> Irrelevance I suspect.
Completely. "X does this so therefore Y must be doing the same thing"
No logical progression.
> > > Why doubt their capability to kill a few tourists for political ends
for
> > > one moment?
> >
> > Because our political leadership, no matter what you might think of
their
> > policies, are not criminals, which you automagically assume of anyone in
> > politics.
> > There is a universe of difference between bending the rules about a
phone
> > card and a national conspiracy to commit mass murder.
> > And for what? So they could ban semi auto rifles? The goal is not
worth
> > either the risk or the cost.
> Exactly. Just about any shooting these days brings out calls for a total
gun
> ban so, why dream up an incredibly dangerous/stupid scheme that would
never
> work?
Quite so. The dimwit in Melbourne that opened up on people with a licensed
handgun has NOT
caused all handguns to be banned. Oh, there'll be another buy back which
will inconvenience
some people, but even Howard, who seems fairly anti gun, quickly stopped any
calls for a total ban, for
no other reason than that it would penalise law abiding gun owners
needlessly, with no real benefit being
achieved. It's probably impractical to ban all firearm ownership in
Australia. This is not the UK with
a huge population crammed into a couple of islands. There is a lot of empty
space, and plenty of legit
needs for firearms. They've banned semi autos (I think that was overkill,
if they'd left it at assault rifles
very few would have whinged - but .22s and auto shotguns as well? Silly
really). They look like
having another buyback of semiauto pistols with mag size >7, but that's
about it.
In an ideal world perhaps we wouldn't need them, in the real one, perhaps we
should arm more of the
population. It's interesting that although we have a right to self defence,
you are unlikely to have a weapon
to defend yourself with if (say) your home is invaded by a couple of louts
with an old shotgun or a 'zip' gun
of some kind. It's very easy to fabricate a simple firearm. Bans only work
on honest people.
The CO
The CO
> I believe there is a lot of truth in what both the CO and Roger are
saying.
Well to be honest, whilst I have difficulty finding much truth in Roger's
conspiracy theory,
he strikes me as reasonably cluey, which is why I am a little surprised that
he would
endorse this rather way out conspiracy idea which seems to have been dreamed
up by a
known kook in WA.
> It's great to have a ng where ppl actually know something about the
subject.
There are certainly some very clued up people in here, in various
specialties.
The CO
Morton Davis
It's interesting that although we have a right to self defence,
> you are unlikely to have a weapon
> to defend yourself with if (say) your home is invaded by a couple of louts
> with an old shotgun or a 'zip' gun
> of some kind. It's very easy to fabricate a simple firearm. Bans only
work
> on honest people.
>
Very true, but fabricating a gun is not necesary, there are plaenty of guns
available for the bad guys to buy, should not be hard for the good guys to
get them - EXCEPT that is would make criminals of the good guys under the
laws.
Recent interception of shipments of guns to Canada and the UK indicate that
there is a perceived black markert value for guns. It is only a matter of
time before some enterprising HMG subject discovers how eaasy it is to
manufacture semi automatic handguns or AK-47s and goes into business making
them, or, maybe, Sten guns.
-*MORT*-
RT
The CO wrote in message <83WT9.16$IW4....@vicpull1.telstra.net>...
Hints:
1. There has never been a coronial inquest. If 20 people get killed in a
bus accident or 3 people get killed in a car accident etc.... or some silly
bugger collides his ship with a bridge in Tas.......
2. Sydney Sparkes Orr - University of Tasmania. Check it out if you want
to see what real bastardry can go on, particularly in Tasmania. Liberal
Party and the judiciary, coincidentally of course! From memory that took
something like 20 years to be sorted out.
3. Who planted the false heroin dump to ensure the 2 coppers were away that
day? And who rang the coppers to tell them about it? Martin? Phone
records?
Er, 4. I've been a competitive rifle and pistol shooter since 1958. I've
got a certificate of appreciation from the police for helping them train,
was a State Team member and am a Level 3 coach etc.
No, I'm not good enough for the results in the cafe.
Maybe my IQ is too high?
Pisses me off a bit though to think I've been shooting all that time and a
bloke who has been doing a little bit of practice in the scrub is so much
better, particularly when he's using the thing right-hnded and he's really
left-handed - - - that gets up my nose like a ferret.......
The CO
"Morton Davis" <oglet...@oglethorpe.com> wrote in message
news:AjWT9.24550$%n.5572@sccrnsc02...
>
> "The CO" <as...@somewhere.in.oz.au> wrote in message
> news:WUVT9.15$IW4....@vicpull1.telstra.net...
>
> It's interesting that although we have a right to self defence,
> > you are unlikely to have a weapon
> > to defend yourself with if (say) your home is invaded by a couple of
louts
> > with an old shotgun or a 'zip' gun
> > of some kind. It's very easy to fabricate a simple firearm. Bans only
> work
> > on honest people.
> >
>
> Very true, but fabricating a gun is not necesary, there are plaenty of
guns
> available for the bad guys to buy, should not be hard for the good guys to
> get them - EXCEPT that is would make criminals of the good guys under the
> laws.
Yes. Crims can always get guns.
> Recent interception of shipments of guns to Canada and the UK indicate
that
> there is a perceived black markert value for guns. It is only a matter of
> time before some enterprising HMG subject discovers how eaasy it is to
> manufacture semi automatic handguns or AK-47s and goes into business
making
> them, or, maybe, Sten guns.
Some gunsmith in Adelaide got busted about a year back. Got caught with a
submachine in his car.
Apparently he had been making them for a while. Presumably sold quite a
few. An SMG is probably
the simplest firearm to manufacture next to a single shot 'zip' gun. A
revolver is far more complex.
Some basic machine tools, (a lathe and a good drill press) and some welding
skills and you can make one
at home. I think that the US books that tell you how in detail are
prohibited imports, which probably means
that 10% of the population have them anyway.
If any cops are listening, no I don't have any, nor a copy of the book(s).
So don't get anything in a twist.
But it pays to remember that knowledge is even harder to ban than guns.
The CO
The CO
The CO
Not unheard of. If it was a conspiracy like they suggest then a coronial
inquest
would probably not be permitted to determine anything but what the PTB
wanted
them to determine. But I feel quite certain that there WOULD be one, just
to ensure
that someone didn;t point it out as suspicious. (As you are doing).
> 2. Sydney Sparkes Orr - University of Tasmania. Check it out if you
want
> to see what real bastardry can go on, particularly in Tasmania. Liberal
> Party and the judiciary, coincidentally of course! From memory that took
> something like 20 years to be sorted out.
I'll look into that, but I suggest that it did not involve mass homicide.
> 3. Who planted the false heroin dump to ensure the 2 coppers were away
that
> day? And who rang the coppers to tell them about it? Martin?
Possibly. Probably even. If you ask him, he'll probably tell you. It's
not like he
makes any secret of the fact he was the shooter. Loopy, but too stupid to
lie much.
> Phone records?
Ask the cops.
> Er, 4. I've been a competitive rifle and pistol shooter since 1958. I've
> got a certificate of appreciation from the police for helping them train,
> was a State Team member and am a Level 3 coach etc.
> No, I'm not good enough for the results in the cafe.
> Maybe my IQ is too high?
I think you overrate the difficulty. No disrespect, but in a small space
full of people, opening up
with a short barrelled semi auto, rapid fire whilst turning would probably
hit a lot of people before
they had a chance to react. Unless you are trained that way, most peoples
reactions on hearing gunfire
is to look around to id the source of the sound, add disbelief and shock
value and you are going to have
a delay of several seconds, perhaps as long as 10 before people start
reacting effectively, by taking cover or
trying to get out. They will be bunched up, families in particular would
cling together.
> Pisses me off a bit though to think I've been shooting all that time and a
> bloke who has been doing a little bit of practice in the scrub is so much
> better, particularly when he's using the thing right-hnded and he's really
> left-handed - - - that gets up my nose like a ferret.......
Shooting from the hip would reduce the significance of that. And some
people are
naturally good at instinctive fire, not impossible, or even improbable, that
he is one of them.
Occams Razor applies to this whole concept.
The CO
Yardpilot
Interesting, isn't it? Besides, detailed plans really aren't that necessary.
Exploded drawings of just about everrything are availible. Easily built
smg's have quite a history.
http://www.pmulcahy.com/ukrainian_submachineguns.htm
"This is a Ukrainian submachinegun designed after the Twilight War started
and built using simple construction methods. The plans were given out freely
by the Ukrainian government, and they were made in many backyard machine
shops as well as large plants. They were issued to Ukrainian militia units
and civilians alike for local defense. Though better in quality than the
Wojo W/99, it is a weapon along the same vein. Ammo: 9mmM; Weight: 2.5 kg;
Magazine: 25, 32; Price: $210 (-/R)"
Roger Dewhurst
>
> "The Raven" <ws...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
> news:avosaa$i8jlj$1...@ID-137622.news.dfncis.de...
> > "The CO" <as...@somewhere.in.oz.au> wrote in message
> > news:EeST9.4$IW4....@vicpull1.telstra.net...
> > >
> > > "Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@NOSPAM.wave.co.nz> wrote in
message
> > > news:avo2on$osu$1...@news.wave.co.nz...
> > > >
> > > > "The CO" <as...@somewhere.in.oz.au> wrote in message
> > > > news:d1KT9.9$dP4....@vicpull1.telstra.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@NOSPAM.wave.co.nz> wrote in
message
> > > > > news:avnnrl$mas$1...@news.wave.co.nz...
> > > <SNIP>
> > >
>
>
> Yes. Wounded in the process.
He was arrested outside a burning building some distance away the
following morning, He was not wounded. he was burned.
>
> > >
> > > > The failure to identify Bryant at the scene by someone
who did
> > > > know him.
Even talking to him through a car window prior to the shooting?
>
> > > > The rifles recovered from the house near which Bryant was
> > > > arrested could not have been fired because parts were
missing and
> > > > they had been blown up.
Neither was in a state in which it could ever be fired again.
Thus forensic eveidence could never be used to associate a fatal
bullet with either rifle.
> > >
> > > At least one was.
> >
> > And no evidence to suggest when they were "blown up".
No. There was no evidence that the two rifles found were used at
all. There could not be. They could not be fired to obtain that
forensic evidence.
>
> Amongst other things.
> > >
> > > > Bryant is left handed. The shooter in the restaurant was
right
> > > > handed.
> > >
> > > Many possibilities.
> >
> > To suggest one obvious one, the weapons may have been right
handed models
> > (as most are).
>
> It was. :^)
The only right handedness about them is the side on which the
cases are ejected. The are little bit more right handed than a
hammer, but not much.
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > > > In the restaurant Bryant is alleged to have killed 20
with head
> > > > shots and wounded 12 more, all with 29 bullets.
> > >
> > > At short range it's quite feasible that one round could hit
more than
> one
> > > person in a crowded place.
Indeed that must have happened.
> >
> > Exactly and 29 rounds into a crowded room is likely to result
in multiple
> > hits. 32 hits from 29 isn't unbelievable.
>
> It would be more unbelievable if a high powered weapon in a
confined space
> with lots of bodies in it DIDN'T result in more than one hit
per round.
>
> > > > It is also alleged that he failed to hit a single
policeman when
> > > > firing some 300 rounds from the house somewhat later. If
he was
> > > > good enough to kill 20 with 29 shots firing right handed
from the
> > > > hip how is it that he was unable to hit a single
policeman wirth
> > > > 300 bullets of aimed fire?
> > >
>
> The sights were effectively disabled. The IQ of 66 comes in to
play here.
> But point blank
> from the hip in confined space will get you hits even if you
have your eyes
> closed I would think.
There are those with military experience who think otherwise.
>
> > > > Why should we be surprised that a government might
organize this
> > > > event?
> > >
> > > Gee, let's see. It would have been seriously criminal and
subject
> anyone
> > > involved to the risk of life in prison.
So politicians don't do anyrthing criminal and always tell the
truth!!!!!!!!!!!! What was it Howard said about those refugees?
Nixon? Clinton? Mitterand? Mugabe? These are just some of the
ones everyone knows about.
It would destroy the govt
> and/or
> > > the pollies involved (which would have had to include
Ministers and PM
> to get some
> > > thing like that off the ground, with no real benefit that
could not be
> obtained by other
> > > means.
Who was that Australian federal politician who said in Parliament
"We need a massacre in Tasmania before we can change the gun
laws"? He got it didn't he?
>
> > > Banning semi-autos
> > > is not a big enough gain.
It is not just semi-autos. They are just the in end of the
wedge. If and when Howard and others of similar mindset get
their way there will be no lawfully owned guns, long, short or
anything in between, in Australia, except those held by the
police and military. In is naive to imagine that is not also the
intent of numerous politicians in Britain and a few in New
Zealand also. Howard has actually said that!
> > > The chances of pulling it off without something coming
unstuck are not
> > >good, the risk would be incredibly high, espeically with
someone like
> Bryant in
> > > the mix.
Unless Bryant was in the mix simply because he is a mental
defective.
> Bryant himself admits to being the shooter.
After months of solitary confinement and psychological pressure.
Normally anyone else with his IQ would have been put straight
into a psychiatric unit. With that IQ he was not fit to plead.
>He was wounded and captured at
> the scene, armed with the
> weapon that did the shooting.
He was arrested severely burned outside a buring building. He
was not bullet wounded. The two rifles, not in operable
condition, were found on the roof. He was supposed to have fired
about 300 shots through one or both of these weapons neither of
which were operable.
> He was a nutcase that went off the deep end. It's worth noting
that he was
> denied a firearms license.
Certainly he was a nutter. He was the ideal patsy.
> > > I can't
> > > imagine an Army shooter cold enough to shoot a 3 year old
girl's
> parents,
> > > then chase her down to a hiding spot and kill her as well.
No. And it does not have to be. Hit men can be bought. They
usually are.
>
> > It'd take more than the average Army shooter to take people
down at range
> > while making every shot look like it came from Bryant.
>
> Particularly the ones indoors. Good trick if you could do it.
Certainly. No one is suggesting that at all.
> > > last minute also high. You would have also needed the full
cooperation
> of the Police, numerous agents etc
The two local police were conveniently a long way off examining a
bottle filled with flour which they had been told was full of
drugs. Was Bryant smart enough to decoy the local police away
with a drug hoax?
> > > Too hard, not enough gain to make it worthwhile, even
assuming a total
> > > lack of morals, which I suggest is not the case anyway.
Howard is not
> the kind of person that
> > > could order or condone something like this.
You have more faith in politicians than I do.
> >
> > Not even the CIA could pull off such a stunt, even with the
full
> > co-operation of all involved.
>
> Not in this country anyway.
>
> > > >The French president ordered the destruction of a ship in
> > > > New Zealand waters and the murder that resulted.
> > >
> > > The French Secret Service did that. I don't recall if the
President
> knew
> > > about it until after the fact.
His interior minister ordered it but it is stretching credibility
to suggest that he did not know.
R
M. Eglestone
>
> Want to know "The real reason so many died at the hands of one man"? It's
> because that one man had a load of firearms and was prepared to use them. That
> is indisputable, that is a FACT.
----
And all this time I was under the impression that the man was mentally ill
and, under most legal circumstances, should not have been allowed within
100 yards of a firearm.
People of sound mind don't go on shooting sprees, and firearms do NOT give
off "Evil Gun Rays" which drive otherwise normal folks to commit crimes.
Australia didn't have a gun crime problem before they instituted their
draconian gun laws. They still don't have a very large one. They have,
however, spent Millions and Millions of dollars correcting a problem which
(by any reasonable standard of measurement) didn't exist!
--
- SMS Mike -
============
People don't want the facts when making up their minds. They would rather
have one good, soul satisfying emotion than a dozen solid facts.
-Robert Keith Leavitt
Tom Woodley
>
> "RT" <r.th...@cqu.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:avpgst$tqm$1...@spider.cqu.edu.au...
> >
> > The CO wrote in message <83WT9.16$IW4....@vicpull1.telstra.net>...
> > >
> > >"iCentral" <icen...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> > >news:3e201803$0$27995$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > >> I believe there is a lot of truth in what both the CO and Roger are
> > >saying.
> > >
I've
> > got a certificate of appreciation from the police for helping them
train,
> > was a State Team member and am a Level 3 coach etc.
> > No, I'm not good enough for the results in the cafe.
> > Maybe my IQ is too high?
>
> I think you overrate the difficulty. No disrespect, but in a small space
> full of people, opening up
> with a short barrelled semi auto, rapid fire whilst turning would probably
> hit a lot of people before
> they had a chance to react. Unless you are trained that way, most peoples
> reactions on hearing gunfire
> is to look around to id the source of the sound, add disbelief and shock
> value and you are going to have
> a delay of several seconds, perhaps as long as 10 before people start
> reacting effectively, by taking cover or
> trying to get out. They will be bunched up, families in particular would
> cling together.
>
one of which is that there have been so many theories flying around about
the incident that I doubt if the truth will ever come out in my lifetime,
and I've never wanted to add to the volumes of verbiage that exists already.
However I feel compelled to say a couple of things about the degree of
marksmanship involved in the incident both inside and outside the cafe.
First, I'm a retired professional soldier of 22 years experience and was one
of the better shots in the army with a wide variety of weapons. I've done
all of the course of fire at a range of establishments and I don't mean just
open range stuff. I still do a lot of shooting.
If the court transcripts are correct (and I'm not in a position to dispute
them) then the events inside the cafe require a more careful examination.
According to the transcripts, Bryant, using 29 rounds in the space of 90
seconds killed 20 people and wounded 10 others, with those killed all
recieving head or neck shots, with all the shooting done from the hip. It
was then revealed that although he was left handed, for some reason he used
the rifle right handed. My first thought when I heard all of this was "That
simply isn't possible" and I am still left with that feeling of disbelief
today.
I tell you this. I couldn't achieve that level of lethality or accuracy,
even if the targets were sitting dead still for the full 90 seconds
duration. I could do it if I got up real close to each of the victims, say
within 1 metre, but I understand from the evidence presented that there were
no powder residues on any of the bodies, indicating that the shots were
fired from a greater distance, and this is where my disbelief kicks in.
Those people weren't sitting there like dummies for the full 90 seconds just
waiting for their turn. After the initial shock they would have been diving
for cover, trying to run, etc, When you add these reactions to the evidence,
then I have to tell you that there are very few trained shooters in the
world who could achieve that degree of accuracy and lethality using the
number of rounds indicated in the time stated.
Further, when he got outside, Bryant was credited with having shot a couple
in a vehicle which was moving, at a range of around 120m using open sights
on an FAL semi auto rifle, using 2 or was it 3 rounds only. I might be able
to do this right handed but if you asked me to do it left handed, I doubt if
I could, using that number of bullets.
I'm not in a position to comment about the various conspiracy theories
relating to the case. I can't believe the Government would have had any
involvement in such a thing. Could some other oprganisation have been
involved such as an anti-gun organisation? That is a possibility. They had
the most to gain from this. But all of this is beside the point. All I am
saying is this. I could not have done what Bryant is alleged to have done,
if the court transcripts are correct and I don't know many people who could
have. To put things in some perspective, I could guarantee you a lethal head
shot at 50m with a pistol of my choice and a lethal body shot at 200m with a
rifle, both from the standing unsupported position.
That's my 5 cents worth.
By the way, people who like to quote Occam's Razor in cases like this should
remember that using the same principle, it is more likely that the sun
actually travels around the earth each day and we know that isn't so.
Otto Von Bismarck
> Can we leave your freudian homosexual urges to yourself ?
> I mention guns and you hear penis ?
What other desperate need could you have to _need_ guns? Simply to
make up for your lack of manliness? Or is there a better reason?
Scout
"Otto Von Bismarck" <bismar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4de33a52.03011...@posting.google.com...
Yea, we saw what the Germans did to those "manly" Jews. Sometimes, there is
a desperate need to have guns, and usually it's because someone else is
trying to do bad things to you.
Thor
YOUR the one who brought it up...tell ya what sport, next time you are confronted by a
criminal I will pull out my gun...you on the other hand can pull out your........
Tom S.
"Scout" <sco...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:yT2U9.5560$Qr4.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
veritas
handgun) to be close to the truth - and that was (to the effect) "it" is
the world's greatest equaliser.
Otto Von Bismarck wrote:
> "iCentral" <icen...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message news:<3e2013bf$0$27995$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>...
>
<snip>
Tom Woodley
"Otto Von Bismarck" <bismar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4de33a52.03011...@posting.google.com...
Absolutely! There is nothing better than taking a gun to bed and making love
to it all night.
Fuckwit!
The CO
>
> "The CO" <as...@somewhere.in.oz.au> wrote in message
> news:WUVT9.15$IW4....@vicpull1.telstra.net...
> >
> > "The Raven" <ws...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:avosaa$i8jlj$1...@ID-137622.news.dfncis.de...
> > > "The CO" <as...@somewhere.in.oz.au> wrote in message
> > > news:EeST9.4$IW4....@vicpull1.telstra.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@NOSPAM.wave.co.nz> wrote in
> message
> > > > news:avo2on$osu$1...@news.wave.co.nz...
> > > > >
> > > > > "The CO" <as...@somewhere.in.oz.au> wrote in message
> > > > > news:d1KT9.9$dP4....@vicpull1.telstra.net...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@NOSPAM.wave.co.nz> wrote in
> message
> > > > > > news:avnnrl$mas$1...@news.wave.co.nz...
> > > > <SNIP>
> > > >
> >
> > > Wasn't he arrested at the site?
> >
> > Yes. Wounded in the process.
>
> He was arrested outside a burning building some distance away the
> following morning, He was not wounded. he was burned.
Wounded/burned. ok.
> > > > > The failure to identify Bryant at the scene by someone
> > > > > who did know him.
>
> Even talking to him through a car window prior to the shooting?
Supposedly. It happens.
> > > > > The rifles recovered from the house near which Bryant was
> > > > > arrested could not have been fired because parts were
> > > > > missing and they had been blown up.
> Neither was in a state in which it could ever be fired again.
> Thus forensic eveidence could never be used to associate a fatal
> bullet with either rifle.
The calibre was a match however. You seem to be mixing the issue.
In one instance you suggest the shooter wasn't Bryant but some
fictitious mil trained sharpshooter, in another you go on about how
the weapons supposedly used were destroyed (in the fire actually) and
couldn't be forensically confirmed as the weapon used.
> > > > At least one was.
> > >
> > > And no evidence to suggest when they were "blown up".
>
> No. There was no evidence that the two rifles found were used at
> all. There could not be. They could not be fired to obtain that
> forensic evidence.
Whihc answers your previous 'gimme' question about why there was no
forensic evidence presented. It doesn't mean much really.
Think about this, if 'they' (your mythical conspirators) wanted to make sure
Bryant got nailed, he would have been found with his weapons, or even
simpler,
conveniently killed in the process of capture. No loose ends or chance of
him not
cooperating. Again, you make it overly complex and more likely to fail.
Simpler is better, and this has more convolutions than the brain of whoever
dreamed
this fairy tale up in the first place.
> > Amongst other things.
>
> > > >
> > > > > Bryant is left handed. The shooter in the restaurant was
> > > > > right handed.
> > > >
> > > > Many possibilities.
> > >
> > > To suggest one obvious one, the weapons may have been right
> > > handed models (as most are).
> >
> > It was. :^)
>
> The only right handedness about them is the side on which the
> cases are ejected. The are little bit more right handed than a
> hammer, but not much.
Except that if you hold them left handed, you tend to get burned by the
ejected shells, because
your right forearm is in just the right place.
> > <SNIP>
> >
> > > > > In the restaurant Bryant is alleged to have killed 20
> > > > > with head shots and wounded 12 more, all with 29 bullets.
> > > > > At short range it's quite feasible that one round could hit
> > > > > more than one person in a crowded place.
>
> Indeed that must have happened.
Q.E.D.
> > > Exactly and 29 rounds into a crowded room is likely to result
> > > in multiple hits. 32 hits from 29 isn't unbelievable.
> > It would be more unbelievable if a high powered weapon in a
> > confined space with lots of bodies in it DIDN'T result in more than one
hit
> > per round.
<snip>
> > The sights were effectively disabled. The IQ of 66 comes in to
> > play here.
> > But point blank from the hip in confined space will get you hits even if
you
> > have your eyes closed I would think.
>
> There are those with military experience who think otherwise.
Oh? I don't share it. Want to do a quick poll in here? A few ADG's
with training in room clearing might like to throw their 2c worth in.
> > > > > Why should we be surprised that a government might
> > > > > organize this event?
> > > >
> > > > Gee, let's see. It would have been seriously criminal and
> > > > sbject anyone nvolved to the risk of life in prison.
>
> So politicians don't do anything criminal and always tell the
> truth!!!!!!!!!!!!
Le's compare apples with apples shall we?
If you think planning a mass murder of men, women and children is comparable
with rorting travel expenses or electoral allowances you are seriously
deluded.
One amounts to either stupidity or petty theft at worst. Something like
this would
bring down governments and cause the conspirators to spend life in jail.
What was it Howard said about those refugees?
Clutching at straws a bit aren't you? He was either deliberately or
inadvertently mislead
by his own staff and probably the MOD. Howard is not my favourite pollie,
but he is not
a crook and is honest about his intentions, even where they are misguided.
>Nixon? Clinton? Mitterand? Mugabe? These are just some of the
> ones everyone knows about.
So you want to put an Australian Govt in the same league as 'Watergate'
Nixon, and 'I didn't have sex' Clinton?
Mitterand? What did he do? Not up on French politics.
Mugabe?? I'm surprised you mention him in the same sentence. He's a raving
nutter and effective dictator.
Relevance to the Australian political system and Govt = Zero.
> > > > It would destroy the govt
> > > > and/or the pollies involved (which would have had to include
> > > > Ministers and PM to get something like that
> > > > off the ground, with no real benefit that
> > > > could not be obtained by other
> > > > means.
> Who was that Australian federal politician who said in Parliament
> "We need a massacre in Tasmania before we can change the gun
> laws"? He got it didn't he?
And this proves what? Probably seemed like a safe 'never happen' at the
time.
For all we know, Bryant heard it too and thought it was a fine idea.
> > > > Banning semi-autos
> > > > is not a big enough gain.
>
> It is not just semi-autos. They are just the in end of the
> wedge. If and when Howard and others of similar mindset get
> their way there will be no lawfully owned guns, long, short or
> anything in between, in Australia, except those held by the
> police and military.
Lot harder to do than you think. Too many legit people in the civvie
population
have a genuine need for firearms. Particularly in the rural areas. Target
shooters
also have firearms, and even Howard is not keen on taking them away, as they
do well for us in international competition and it would make us a laughing
stock.
Tell me, what is the situation with firearms in NZ these days? Not trying
to make
a point, just asking.
> In is naive to imagine that is not also the
> intent of numerous politicians in Britain
And it's not working over there. Gun crime has gone up since a virtual
blanket ban
on private firearms was bought in. Seems only the crims have them. Funny
about that.
Any comparison between Oz and GB is fallacious. Totally different situation
and mega
huge population on very small island.
> and a few in New Zealand also. Howard has actually said that!
Howard says a lot of things. Politicians talk a lot. He would need a lot
more support
from his party and the general populace than he is getting.
> > > > The chances of pulling it off without something coming
> > > > unstuck are not good, the risk would be incredibly high, espeically
with
> > > > someone like Bryant in the mix.
> Unless Bryant was in the mix simply because he is a mental
> defective.
?? Which makes him unreliable. If I was driving your conspiracy bus, I
would have made sure he was
killed in the process of being arrested. Anything else just increases the
risk.
> > Bryant himself admits to being the shooter.
>
> After months of solitary confinement and psychological pressure.
Eh? AFAIK, he never denied from the get go.
> Normally anyone else with his IQ would have been put straight
> into a psychiatric unit.
Two things.
1) Dumb does not equal insane.
2) He went straight to a hospital because he was badly burned, remember?
> With that IQ he was not fit to plead.
Could possibly agree with that. But I have very little sympathy either way.
> >He was wounded and captured at
> > the scene, armed with the
> > weapon that did the shooting.
>
> He was arrested severely burned outside a burning building.
Yeah, the one all the shooting was coming from. Funny about that.
> He was not bullet wounded. The two rifles, not in operable
> condition, were found on the roof. He was supposed to have fired
> about 300 shots through one or both of these weapons neither of
> which were operable.
When they were recovered, however at least one was being used
to shoot at police (and miss). And your point is?
> > He was a nutcase that went off the deep end. It's worth noting
> > that he was denied a firearms license.
> Certainly he was a nutter. He was the ideal patsy.
Ahem, again, if I were driving your fantastic conspiracy bus, I would be
seriously
against using someone with his mindset or intellect as a patsy unless it was
as a dead patsy.
> > > > I can't imagine an Army shooter cold enough to shoot a 3 year old
> > > > girl's parents, then chase her down to a hiding spot and kill her as
well.
> No. And it does not have to be. Hit men can be bought. They
> usually are.
So now we are down to the Aust Govt hiring a mafia mechanic? Oh this just
gets better.
Even more likely to come unglued. I don't think any such person could be
depended on to
keep his mouth shut. Even if he was an 'honest crook' and stayed bought,
again, if I was
driving your conspiracy bus, I'd have him liquidated straight after the
event. Hit men are
not stupid, and he would certainly feel that if he took the job he probably
wouldn't live to
collect his fee. Nope, that's even less likely than your Army trained
shooter fantasy.
> > > It'd take more than the average Army shooter to take people
> > > down at range while making every shot look like it came from Bryant.
> > Particularly the ones indoors. Good trick if you could do it.
> Certainly. No one is suggesting that at all.
Yes, you seem to be suggesting that someone else masquerading as Bryant
sprayed the room.
> > > > last minute also high. You would have also needed the full
> > > > cooperation of the Police, numerous agents etc
> The two local police were conveniently a long way off examining a
> bottle filled with flour which they had been told was full of
> drugs. Was Bryant smart enough to decoy the local police away
> with a drug hoax?
Possibly. Or it could have been a coincidence by some concerned citizen who
really did think it was drugs. It happens.
> > > > Too hard, not enough gain to make it worthwhile, even
> > > > > assuming a total lack of morals, which I suggest is not the case
anyway.
> > > > Howard is not the kind of person that
> > > > could order or condone something like this.
>
> You have more faith in politicians than I do.
Apparently. I have enough faith in our political system to believe that no
govt would
try and pull something this evil for virtually no gain or profit.
You seem to have a belief that all politicians are inherently evil, to the
point where you
can't distinguish petty bs from mass assasination.
<SNIP>
> > > > >The French president ordered the destruction of a ship in
> > > > > New Zealand waters and the murder that resulted.
> > > >
> > > > The French Secret Service did that. I don't recall if the
> > > > President knew about it until after the fact.
> His interior minister ordered it but it is stretching credibility
> to suggest that he did not know.
Is it? I think not, the French have a very oddball govt system at the best
of times.
In either case, it is totally irrelevant to the situation here. It's also
worth noting that
even the French didn't intend to kill anyone, just sink the ship. That part
was an
accident. Doesn't diminish their crime, but worthy of note.
The CO
The CO
"M. Eglestone" <sms...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3E207803...@bellsouth.net...
> > Phil Smythe wrote:
> >
> > Want to know "The real reason so many died at the hands of one man"?
It's
> > because that one man had a load of firearms and was prepared to use
them. That
> > is indisputable, that is a FACT.
> ----
>
> And all this time I was under the impression that the man was mentally
ill
> and, under most legal circumstances, should not have been allowed within
> 100 yards of a firearm.
Correct, he had tried to get a license and been refused.
> People of sound mind don't go on shooting sprees, and firearms do NOT
give
> off "Evil Gun Rays" which drive otherwise normal folks to commit crimes.
Correct.
> Australia didn't have a gun crime problem before they instituted their
> draconian gun laws.
With a few notable excepted events excluded, no, not a big one anyway.
> They still don't have a very large one.
No argument.
> They have, however, spent Millions and Millions of dollars correcting a
problem which
> (by any reasonable standard of measurement) didn't exist!
Pollies being seen to be doing something. Nothing more.
The CO
Brash
news:4de33a52.03011...@posting.google.com...
If you have to ask the question in that way, you wouldn't understand the
answer. (Nor want to hear it anyway).
--
Bring on the herbivores, I'm hungry.
The CO
"Tom Woodley" <twoo...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:K70U9.2214$UB4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Understandable.
> and I've never wanted to add to the volumes of verbiage that exists
already.
> However I feel compelled to say a couple of things about the degree of
> marksmanship involved in the incident both inside and outside the cafe.
>
> First, I'm a retired professional soldier of 22 years experience and was
one
> of the better shots in the army with a wide variety of weapons. I've done
> all of the course of fire at a range of establishments and I don't mean
just
> open range stuff. I still do a lot of shooting.
Ok, I would consider your opinion 'expert' on that basis.
> If the court transcripts are correct (and I'm not in a position to dispute
> them) then the events inside the cafe require a more careful examination.
> According to the transcripts, Bryant, using 29 rounds in the space of 90
> seconds killed 20 people and wounded 10 others, with those killed all
> recieving head or neck shots, with all the shooting done from the hip. It
> was then revealed that although he was left handed, for some reason he
used
> the rifle right handed. My first thought when I heard all of this was
"That
> simply isn't possible" and I am still left with that feeling of disbelief
> today.
Ok, bearing in mind I haven't seen the transcripts, were the bulk of the
people seated?
It seems to me that in a cafe most would be seated at tables, some facing
away.
Now considering the shooter was standing, hip fire (which tends to go high)
would probably be
about the right angle for high hits at 5 or 6m range.
> I tell you this. I couldn't achieve that level of lethality or accuracy,
> even if the targets were sitting dead still for the full 90 seconds
> duration. I could do it if I got up real close to each of the victims, say
> within 1 metre, but I understand from the evidence presented that there
were
> no powder residues on any of the bodies, indicating that the shots were
> fired from a greater distance, and this is where my disbelief kicks in.
My understanding was that he moved around the room turning and firing as he
went.
At what range does powder residue find its way to the victim? ISTR it is
something under
2M? Could you do it from 2m or 3m? I think you could.
> Those people weren't sitting there like dummies for the full 90 seconds
just
> waiting for their turn.
No, some definitely tried to get away, some ducked for cover, which didn't
stop him
killing them.
> After the initial shock they would have been diving
> for cover, trying to run, etc, When you add these reactions to the
evidence,
> then I have to tell you that there are very few trained shooters in the
> world who could achieve that degree of accuracy and lethality using the
> number of rounds indicated in the time stated.
Which suggests to me that the time is wrong. Peoples sense of time in
traumatic
situations is often seriously distorted.
> Further, when he got outside, Bryant was credited with having shot a
couple
> in a vehicle which was moving, at a range of around 120m using open sights
> on an FAL semi auto rifle, using 2 or was it 3 rounds only.
3 IIRC. The vehicle was moving very slowly, and I doubt the accuracy of the
range,
which is based largely on the accounts of witnesses who were trying to get
out of dodge at
the time. He was under no pressure to rush the shots, it's not like anyone
could shoot back.
> I might be able to do this right handed but if you asked me to do it left
handed, I doubt if
> I could, using that number of bullets.
Hmm, certainly possible. Not much credence is given to his marksmanship
anywhere, but it's at least
possible he was a natural good shot. Some people are. Whilst I agree it's
unusual to be that good, it
isn't unheard of either, and the trajectory of that weapon is close to flat
at that range.
My stepdaughter is mildly retarded (IQ around 85) and her partner is also,
though his is closer to 70.
He has a gun license, and owns long arms. He is not a gun nut, and only
occasionally goes shooting
with his mates. He is a very good shot, and has trouble understanding why
people think shooting is
hard, though he has zero understanding of ballistics...
Good shot = rabbit head shot at 100m or so with iron sights in twilight.
> I'm not in a position to comment about the various conspiracy theories
> relating to the case. I can't believe the Government would have had any
> involvement in such a thing.
Nor I.
> Could some other organisation have been
> involved such as an anti-gun organisation? That is a possibility. They had
> the most to gain from this.
An outside possibility, again however, I think it unlikely they could pull
it off flawlessly,
especially if the Govt wasn't in on it, which seems unbelieveable to me.
> But all of this is beside the point. All I am saying is this. I could not
have done what Bryant is alleged to have done,
> if the court transcripts are correct
I suspect some parts of the event are distorted, particularly the time
frame.
Witnesses often can't agree on that in such events. To one it might seem
much
longer, to another shorter. No witness sees the event exactly the same way,
so this can lead to seeming contradictions by honest witnesses and victims.
> and I don't know many people who could
> have. To put things in some perspective, I could guarantee you a lethal
head
> shot at 50m with a pistol of my choice and a lethal body shot at 200m with
a
> rifle, both from the standing unsupported position.
Ok, that sounds reasonable. I could do the latter but not the former myself,
though it
has been some years since I tried. (SLR)
I'm not a 'gun nut' I don't even own a firearm currently (no time to go
shooting).
> That's my 5 cents worth.
Worth far more than 5 cents.
> By the way, people who like to quote Occam's Razor in cases like this
should
> remember that using the same principle, it is more likely that the sun
> actually travels around the earth each day and we know that isn't so.
:^) Fair comment, however it's correct far more times than it is wrong.
When you look at the entire circumstances of the event, is it more likely
that
it was some huge complex conspiracy, or that some of the data presented to
the
court is erroneous, at least in some degree. I find the former
unsupportable on the
available data, the latter seems far more likely for a number of reasons.
I personally believe it was him, and that he acted alone.
This whole thing reminds me of the 'grassy knoll shooter' theory in the JFK
assasination.
Respects
The CO
The CO
"Otto Von Bismarck" <bismar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4de33a52.03011...@posting.google.com...
Tell it to the heroin addict home invader with an illegal shotgun or pistol
who breaks in and
wants your money and valuables and decides it might be fun to rape your 14
year old while
he's at it. You are going to stop him with what? By pulling out your dick?
It's not unreasonable to possess firearms, either for:-
1. Self defence/deterrent effect - how many crims would
think twice about targeting a place if they know the occupants are armed.?
Plenty of soft targets, they'll probably move on.
2. Sporting/Recreational use. Pistol shooting, Rifle shooting, hunting small
game.
3. Vermin control. Farmers don't have guns because they shoot at targets.
Wild dogs, foxes and other vermin need to
be controlled. The Govt reconises this, why can't you.
The CO
Tom Woodley
>
> "Tom Woodley" <twoo...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> news:K70U9.2214$UB4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> > "The CO" <as...@somewhere.in.oz.au> wrote in message
> > news:o3YT9.18$IW4....@vicpull1.telstra.net...
> > >
> > > "RT" <r.th...@cqu.edu.au> wrote in message
> > > news:avpgst$tqm$1...@spider.cqu.edu.au...
> > > >
> > > > The CO wrote in message <83WT9.16$IW4....@vicpull1.telstra.net>...
> > > > >
> > > > >"iCentral" <icen...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> > > > >news:3e201803$0$27995$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > > > >> I believe there is a lot of truth in what both the CO and Roger
are
> > > > >saying.
> > > > >
conspiracy, the only people I could think of that would engineer such a
thing would be an anti-gun organisation. We'll never know.
My concerns have never been with the fact that Bryant managed to kill the
number of people that he did. Mine lie with the fact that all of his kills
in the cafe were head or neck shots. I could have killed that many in the
time frame but not all with head or neck shots, particularly if I was doing
it left handed (I'm right handed) and probably not with that few bullets -
and these are the things that bother me.
As for the time frame, there are disputes about this but if there were
doubts or uncertainties, the court should have gone for a more conservative
estimate. It didn't. The transcript is very specific in stating that the
time period was 90 secs and withesses who have claimed otherwise have been
roundly criticised by the authorities. Why this should have happened is
beyond me, except that there may have been a desire on the part of
authorities to show how dangerous semi autos were in being able to kill a
lot of people in a short time. Who knows? What most people don't realise is
that a trained rifle shooter can operate a magazine fed, bolt action rifle
almost as quickly as a semi-auto, with a high degree of accuracy.
Anyway, as I said, we'll probably never know. The Government has never
explained satisfactorily why they put a moratorium on the details of the
case for 30 years. If anyone wants to try to get hold of the documents, then
I wish you well.
Frankly I think the constant discussions on this incident are a waste of
time and personally, I'd as soon the subject were never brought up again
Best regards
Tom
The CO
>
> "The CO" <as...@somewhere.in.oz.au> wrote in message
> news:cf4U9.5$J%4.5...@vicpull1.telstra.net...
> >
> > "Tom Woodley" <twoo...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:K70U9.2214$UB4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > >
> > > "The CO" <as...@somewhere.in.oz.au> wrote in message
> > > news:o3YT9.18$IW4....@vicpull1.telstra.net...
> > > >
> > > > "RT" <r.th...@cqu.edu.au> wrote in message
> > > > news:avpgst$tqm$1...@spider.cqu.edu.au...
> > > > >
> > > > > The CO wrote in message
<83WT9.16$IW4....@vicpull1.telstra.net>...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >"iCentral" <icen...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> > > > > >news:3e201803$0$27995$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > > > > >> I believe there is a lot of truth in what both the CO and Roger
> are
> > > > > >saying.
> > > > > >
> I don't believe in the conspiracy theories either except that if there was
a
> conspiracy, the only people I could think of that would engineer such a
> thing would be an anti-gun organisation. We'll never know.
Probably not.
> My concerns have never been with the fact that Bryant managed to kill the
> number of people that he did. Mine lie with the fact that all of his kills
> in the cafe were head or neck shots. I could have killed that many in the
> time frame but not all with head or neck shots, particularly if I was
doing
> it left handed (I'm right handed) and probably not with that few bullets -
> and these are the things that bother me.
I see your reasoning. I feel the discrepancies are due to unwitting
distortion by
the witnesses rather than anything sinister however.
> As for the time frame, there are disputes about this but if there were
> doubts or uncertainties, the court should have gone for a more
conservative
> estimate. It didn't. The transcript is very specific in stating that the
> time period was 90 secs and withesses who have claimed otherwise have been
> roundly criticised by the authorities.
I suspect the court did not want to get bogged down in hair splitting
details. The perp was
in custody, he freely admitted being the shooter, he was fingered by
witnesses and arrested
on the spot. I suspect there was political pressure to get a quick
resolution too, considering
they already had to wait for him to be medically able to stand trial.
If there was a political finger anywhere, it was probably no more than a
whisper to the judge
not to screw around with it and get a result.
> Why this should have happened is
> beyond me, except that there may have been a desire on the part of
> authorities to show how dangerous semi autos were in being able to kill a
> lot of people in a short time. Who knows? What most people don't realise
is
> that a trained rifle shooter can operate a magazine fed, bolt action rifle
> almost as quickly as a semi-auto, with a high degree of accuracy.
Quite so. I've been waiting to see if we had a copycat 'Washington Sniper'
to cause them
to try and ban bolt action centerfires and/or telescopic sights. ANY
firearm is virtually a
WMD to unarmed people. Even with a single shot weapon he could probably
have killed
quite a few.
> Anyway, as I said, we'll probably never know. The Government has never
> explained satisfactorily why they put a moratorium on the details of the
> case for 30 years. If anyone wants to try to get hold of the documents,
then
> I wish you well.
I suspect they may have wanted to reduce the likelihood of copycatting or in
the hopes
it would die down quicker and Port Arthurs tourist trade could recover. Or
both.
I doubt it was as sinister as some seem to think.
> Frankly I think the constant discussions on this incident are a waste of
> time and personally, I'd as soon the subject were never brought up again
I tend to agree. I was reluctant to respond myself, but it seemed wiser to
expose some of
the 'facts' being touted to the cold light of reason rahter than endorse
them with silence.
I consider that as done, any further argument with those cronically
convinced it was a govt conspiracy are probably futile.
Hmm, maybe Bryant was a nazi. Ooops. Godwins Law. Thread
terminated....;^)
Cheers
The CO
Jeffrey
news:yT2U9.5560$Qr4.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
Aaaaand if you don't already have guns when that starts to happen...
you're fucked.
(Oh, and then you call the Americans to bail you out...*again*.)
--
---Jeffrey
"Only in silence the word,
only in dark the light,
only in dying, life:
bright the hawk's flight on the empty sky."
Hunter
Stewart Beattie's book "A Gunsmith's Notebook on Port Arthur" raises
some serious questions about the lone gunman findings.
In chapter 15 entitled Bangs & "Coughs" the author has compiled a
convincing arguement that would suggest the noises recorded on the
police negotiators transcript as Sgt Terry McCarthy's "coughs" were in
fact the sounds of gun shots.
Which of course begs the question, "who was shooting from Seascape
cottage at the police outside while Martin Bryant aka "Jamie" was on
the phone with Sgt McCarthy?"
If there was another gunman in Seascape cottage that night obviously
the official line is flawed.
KH
"Tom Woodley" <twoo...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message news:<K70U9.2214$UB4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
Rakali
noted to enscribe:
>On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 14:38:42 GMT, "Karl Hungus" <karlh...@attbi.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Then you're in the right place my friend! Why, here in the US of A, we have
>>a Constitutional right to.......
>>
>>Wait a minute, you're Australian, aren't you?
>>
>>My condolences....
>
>Yep, here we have the right to sleep at night knowing that Joe Average
>next door DOESN'T have an arsenal next door ready to loose on you one
>day when he had a really bad day at the office.
Too bad that if the nutter next door was inclined to go crazy shooting people
after a bad day at the office, and had access to an arsenal at a moment's
notice, odds are they aren't legally obtained anyways.
How do you sleep knowing that the current gun laws do -nothing- to stop
criminals with guns using them for criminal purposes?
>It's all well and good to go on about "rights" but what happens with
>your "rights" cancel out the rights of others?
>
>I really love the huffing and puffing from gun supporters acting like
>everyone here in Australia is all miserable about depravation of guns,
>when the newspoll a couple of months ago had 83% supporting EVEN
>TIGHTER gun laws.
83% of what? John Laws' whinge-back audience?
>It's all well and good to say you hate the gun laws, but don't try and
>claim "Australia" hates them, because we (as a whole) do not.
It's all well and good to claim you like the idea of banning things for no good
reason, but don't claim that most Aussies support the government stand on not
allowing law abiding gun owners to continue with their sport because widdle
johnny wanted some media coverage and a few votes from limp-wristed hoplophobes.
Rak
Otto Von Bismarck
I recognise all of these uses and generally have no problem with them.
What I have a problem with is the people who think they need lots of
guns or need semi-automatic and automatic weapons, or the ability to
carry guns on their person. Many arguments are centred around these
things.
Rakali
noted to enscribe:
Not to mention goats, donkeys and pigs. What else are you going to use to get
rid of pigs? A tank?
Rak
Otto Von Bismarck
> On 11 Jan 2003 16:09:03 -0800, bismar...@hotmail.com (Otto Von Bismarck) wrote:
> YOUR the one who brought it up...tell ya what sport, next time you are confronted by a
> criminal I will pull out my gun...you on the other hand can pull out your........
And you're confronted by someone you think is a criminal. You pull
out your weapon and shoot them by mistake. Or they are ready for you
and shoot you and your family. Or shots fire everywhere and many
innocent bystanders are hit. Yep, that's what we need - Dodge City,
as that worked so well!! Certainly works well for the gangs in East
LA!
Otto Von Bismarck
Yeah, no bigger one than they guy whose contribution to the thread was
"I want guns." Not that he wants a gun or two for hunting or home
protection - just simply "I want guns." Makes a perfectly sensible
reason to allow guns to proliferate throughout the public arena. You
want a flamethrower and a bazooka. Why should you not have them too?
Tom Woodley
Yes, yes you can go on with the tactic of using absurd possibilities to
support your argument eg why can't I have a H Bomb to play with? The only
people who suggest these absurdities are anti-gun people.
The one thing you anti-gun types fail to address and have no solution for is
the illegal gun trade. The more difficult one makes the process of obtaining
a gun legally, the more the black market thrives. You mightn't like this and
I certainly don't but that's the way things are.
There are many legitimate reasons to own guns. These are clearly stated in
the relevant State and Federal Firearms Acts. Again, like it or not, it's
the law.
One ought to be permitted to own a gun for self defence purposes as well,
providing the person concerned meets certain criteria and is properly
trained and frankly I don't have a problem with legal concealed carry of
handguns either. If several of the people at Port Arthur had been carrying,
there is a very good chance the massacre would not have been as great. As it
was, none of the cafe customers had a chance. That might make people like
you feel comfortable but it makes me sick to my guts.
There - that should give you a few things to get your neck in a knot about.
Otto Von Bismarck
Dickwad - what is the relevance of that first comment. Because I use
a ndp of a German, does not make me a German. Should I refer to you
as Tonto's horse?
How frequently do most people in society have a desperate need for and
the opportunity to use a gun? I think guns are fascinating
instruments, as are all weapons, but that doesn't mean people should
have them.
Tom S.
"Otto Von Bismarck" <bismar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4de33a52.03011...@posting.google.com...
> What I have a problem with is the people who think they need lots of
> guns or need semi-automatic and automatic weapons, or the ability to
> carry guns on their person. Many arguments are centred around these
> things.
How many? First of all, you'll find few, if anyone in her who argues from a
standpoint of need other than typical handguns for self-defense. Desires for
multiples for collectors, hobbies, sport or competitive shooters isn't your
concern.
If you can find someone ho argued need (outside the above context) I'll like
to see it, but you can't. You have a nothing argument so you're projecting
to create a strawman. That's somewhat akin to fraud. So who's the
lawbreaker, those who pursue legal (so far) activities, or the one
committing fraud? (You're right on the edge, even in your apparently
deliberate "tap dancing".
Tom S.
Remember all those AK-47's that came in from China, being they were
palsy-walsy with Bubba.
Tom S.
"Otto Von Bismarck" <bismar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4de33a52.03011...@posting.google.com...
news:<lic12v8lgeiusjmin...@4ax.com>...
> > On 11 Jan 2003 16:09:03 -0800, bismar...@hotmail.com (Otto Von
Bismarck) wrote:
> > YOUR the one who brought it up...tell ya what sport, next time you are
confronted by a
> > criminal I will pull out my gun...you on the other hand can pull out
your........
>
> And you're confronted by someone you think is a criminal. You pull
> out your weapon and shoot them by mistake.
Just because you go off half-cocked...
>Or they are ready for you
> and shoot you and your family. Or shots fire everywhere and many
> innocent bystanders are hit.
Hmmm...that happens about five times a year NATIONWIDE.
You know something else, cops have five to seven times the rate of improper
shootings.
> Yep, that's what we need - Dodge City,
> as that worked so well!! Certainly works well for the gangs in East
> LA!
I won't go into the six various rules of logic you violate here. That many
only could be deliberate.
Tom S.
"Otto Von Bismarck" <bismar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4de33a52.03011...@posting.google.com...
> "Scout" <sco...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<yT2U9.5560$Qr4.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> > "Otto Von Bismarck" <bismar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:4de33a52.03011...@posting.google.com...
> > > "iCentral" <icen...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:<3e2013bf$0$27995$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>...
> > > > Can we leave your freudian homosexual urges to yourself ?
> > > > I mention guns and you hear penis ?
> > >
> > > What other desperate need could you have to _need_ guns? Simply to
> > > make up for your lack of manliness? Or is there a better reason?
> >
> > Yea, we saw what the Germans did to those "manly" Jews. Sometimes, there
is
> > a desperate need to have guns, and usually it's because someone else is
> > trying to do bad things to you.
>
>
> Dickwad - what is the relevance of that first comment.
Keeeerist...didn't they teach history in your public school when you
wer....no, don't answer that.
Mark Addinall
The CO wrote:
> "RT" <r.th...@cqu.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:avpgst$tqm$1...@spider.cqu.edu.au...
>
[snip, snip]
>>No, I'm not good enough for the results in the cafe.
>>Maybe my IQ is too high?
Anything over 170 get you in the club ;-)
>
>
> I think you overrate the difficulty. No disrespect, but in a small space
> full of people, opening up
> with a short barrelled semi auto, rapid fire whilst turning would probably
> hit a lot of people before
Bullshit. Roger has been shooting longer than I, but I used to
do it for a living. And I was very good at it.
> Shooting from the hip would reduce the significance of that. And some
> people are
> naturally good at instinctive fire, not impossible, or even improbable, that
> he is one of them.
>
> Occams Razor applies to this whole concept.
Crap.
Mark Addinall.
>
> The CO
>
>
>
>
The CO
>
> "Otto Von Bismarck" <bismar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4de33a52.0301...@posting.google.com...
<surgical snip>
> > Yeah, no bigger one than they guy whose contribution to the thread was
> > "I want guns." Not that he wants a gun or two for hunting or home
> > protection - just simply "I want guns." Makes a perfectly sensible
> > reason to allow guns to proliferate throughout the public arena. You
> > want a flamethrower and a bazooka. Why should you not have them too?
> Yes, yes you can go on with the tactic of using absurd possibilities to
> support your argument eg why can't I have a H Bomb to play with? The only
> people who suggest these absurdities are anti-gun people.
Concur.
> The one thing you anti-gun types fail to address and have no solution for
is
> the illegal gun trade. The more difficult one makes the process of
obtaining
> a gun legally, the more the black market thrives. You mightn't like this
and
> I certainly don't but that's the way things are.
Chinese made cheap Glock clones are now an illegal import that rivals dope.
They are being flogged to the asian gangs in Sydney for around $2k each.
So much for gun control, it works only on honest people.
> There are many legitimate reasons to own guns. These are clearly stated in
> the relevant State and Federal Firearms Acts. Again, like it or not, it's
> the law.
> One ought to be permitted to own a gun for self defence purposes as well,
> providing the person concerned meets certain criteria and is properly
> trained and frankly I don't have a problem with legal concealed carry of
> handguns either.
It would certainly give the crims reason to think twice.
> If several of the people at Port Arthur had been carrying,
> there is a very good chance the massacre would not have been as great. As
it
> was, none of the cafe customers had a chance.
I have suggested this myself many times. The only reason that was such a
disaster
is because he was the only one with a gun.
> That might make people like
> you feel comfortable but it makes me sick to my guts.
We are in total agreement.
The CO
PLMerite
Indeed! But I'm willing to start out small and work my way up. I think my
desires will be satisfied before I get to the bazooka.
The flamethrower would be a good way to handle some of the weeds in my yard,
though.
One does not need to articulate a reason to have a gun any more than one
needs to justify owning computer to anyone.
I feel it behooves me to have both.
Auf!
Regards, PLMerite
Robert Frenchu
>Thor <m...@me.com> wrote in message news:<lic12v8lgeiusjmin...@4ax.com>...
>> On 11 Jan 2003 16:09:03 -0800, bismar...@hotmail.com (Otto Von Bismarck) wrote:
>> YOUR the one who brought it up...tell ya what sport, next time you are confronted by a
>> criminal I will pull out my gun...you on the other hand can pull out your........
>
>And you're confronted by someone you think is a criminal. You pull
>out your weapon and shoot them by mistake.
That depends. What kind of clues are there? Are they inside my home?
Breaking into my home? Stealing my property?
Or do they just look like a criminal? How many people get "shot by
mistake?" Do you think police do it more often, or less often, than
citizens?
> Or they are ready for you and shoot you and your family.
Or you're ready for them and shoot them first.
> Or shots fire everywhere and many innocent bystanders are hit.
Or your shots all hit where they're supposed to and the criminal is
stopped.
> Yep, that's what we need - Dodge City,
>as that worked so well!! Certainly works well for the gangs in East
>LA!
Good point- there, the criminals have no trouble being armed, while
law-abiding citizens find it more difficult. BTW, Dodge City had gun
control, IIRC.
Matt
news:89722v4nl6vme0628...@4ax.com...
Oh of course there are much better means of it, well we can poison them
all which is humane, is instant - it doesn't take a couple of days to do
so, and is species specific and doesn't kill other animals. Hang on,
that's all shit, just like the anti gun lobby's arguements.
Matt
> Rak
>
>
Thor
Oh and what happens to the scavangers that feed on the carcass...not to mention the wasted
meat for the table...poision is bullshit.
>
>
>
>
>Matt
>
>
>
>
>> Rak
>>
>>
>
M. Eglestone
>
> 1996 gun legislation in Australia was brought about to limit the chances of firearm
> mass-murders. What's happened since?
>
> "There have been no mass-murders committed with a firearm since 1995-96. Prior to
> this Australia recorded at least one firearm mass-murder per year (with the
> exception of 1989-90 and 1993-94)" (covering a 12 year period). - Aust Institute of
> Criminology
> You know this, yet you persist in continuing to ignore it. I can only speculate that
> as what happened here does accord with your view of things you've just blanked it
> out and a deep mental block prevents you from accepting what are indisputable facts.
----
Phil, old son, if YOU are happy with the way things are in your country,
that's fine by me. I don't live anywhere near Australia, and have no plans
to visit.
As previously stated, Australia did NOT have much of a firearms problem
before they instituted their draconian gun laws - they STILL don't have
one. They have, however, spent Millions of Tax Dollars correcting that
non-existent problem.
Nothing much else needs to be said on the subject.
--
- SMS Mike -
============
People don't want the facts when making up their minds. They would rather
have one good, soul satisfying emotion than a dozen solid facts.
-Robert Keith Leavitt
-------------------------------------
M. Eglestone
>
> And you're confronted by someone you think is a criminal. You pull
> out your weapon and shoot them by mistake. Or they are ready for you
> and shoot you and your family. Or shots fire everywhere and many
> innocent bystanders are hit. Yep, that's what we need - Dodge City,
> as that worked so well!! Certainly works well for the gangs in East
> LA!
You're projecting YOUR inability to control yourself when armed (and
confronted) onto others who don't have that problem, Otto. The folks
who legally carry guns in the U.S. are some of the most law abiding
citizens in the country. They carry because of the nature of their
jobs, or because of the known crime problems in their living areas.
Australia passed all sorts of gun laws which directly affected
hundreds of thousands of people who would never even dream of misusing
their firearms. Of course, those who would misuse them were NOT
AFFECTED by the laws because "They are criminals" - People who just
don't care about gun laws.
So, who actually benefited from those laws? It certainly wasn't the
law abiding gun owners who were forced to hand in their firearms while
the Criminals KEPT the ones that they had.
Tom S.
>
> 1996 gun legislation in Australia was brought about to limit the chances
of firearm
> mass-murders. What's happened since?
>
> "There have been no mass-murders committed with a firearm since 1995-96.
Prior to
> this Australia recorded at least one firearm mass-murder per year (with
the
> exception of 1989-90 and 1993-94)" (covering a 12 year period). - Aust
Institute of
> Criminology
So all the mass murderers turned in their guns? Right!! Can you say naive?
Sure you can.
Some thoughts towards filling in the gaps in the numerous inductive and
causal fallicies Smythe commits:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/induct.htm
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/causal.htm
And the periods prior?
I notice your qualifier "committed with a firearm". Hmmm!!
What is considered "mass murder"?
What percent was the number of weapons turned in of the total in existence?
I've heard no more than 20%.
Tom S.
"M. Eglestone" <sms...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3E21A7E2...@bellsouth.net...
> > Otto Von Bismarck wrote:
> >
> > And you're confronted by someone you think is a criminal. You pull
> > out your weapon and shoot them by mistake. Or they are ready for you
> > and shoot you and your family. Or shots fire everywhere and many
> > innocent bystanders are hit. Yep, that's what we need - Dodge City,
> > as that worked so well!! Certainly works well for the gangs in East
> > LA!
> -----
>
> You're projecting YOUR inability to control yourself when armed (and
> confronted) onto others who don't have that problem, Otto. The folks
> who legally carry guns in the U.S. are some of the most law abiding
> citizens in the country.
Just as a point of reference, CCW holders in the US have a crime rate ONE
HALF to ONE FOURTH that of...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Oh my god!!!
.
.
.
.
POLICE OFFICERS
Roger Dewhurst
>
> "Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@NOSPAM.wave.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:avpqvr$8vt$1...@news.wave.co.nz...> > news:WUVT9.15$IW4....@vicpull1.telstra.net...
> > >
> > > "The Raven" <ws...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:avosaa$i8jlj$1...@ID-137622.news.dfncis.de...> > > > news:EeST9.4$IW4....@vicpull1.telstra.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@NOSPAM.wave.co.nz> wrote in
> > message
> > > > > news:avo2on$osu$1...@news.wave.co.nz...> > > > > > news:d1KT9.9$dP4....@vicpull1.telstra.net...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@NOSPAM.wave.co.nz> wrote
in
> > message
> > > > > > > news:avnnrl$mas$1...@news.wave.co.nz...
> > > > > <SNIP>
> > > > >
> > >
>
> > Neither was in a state in which it could ever be fired again.
> > Thus forensic evidence could never be used to associate a
fatal
> > bullet with either rifle.
>
> The calibre was a match however.
That doesn't mean much. How many choices of calibre are there?
>You seem to be mixing the issue.
> In one instance you suggest the shooter wasn't Bryant but some
> fictitious mil trained sharpshooter, in another you go on about
how
> the weapons supposedly used were destroyed (in the fire
actually) and
> couldn't be forensically confirmed as the weapon used.
I suggest that the shooter was not Bryant and I suggest that the
two rifles found were not ever owned/used by Bryant and that they
were not even fired at the time of the shooting. They were
planted in a destroyed and unuseable state. Actually the weapons
had been burst as might have happened if fired with overloaded
cartridges or obstructions in the barrel. These would normally
have resulted in gross injury to the firer. Bryant did not show
these injuries.
> Whihc answers your previous 'gimme' question about why there
was no
> forensic evidence presented. It doesn't mean much really.
> Think about this, if 'they' (your mythical conspirators) wanted
to make sure
> Bryant got nailed, he would have been found with his weapons,
or even
> simpler,
> conveniently killed in the process of capture. No loose ends
or chance of
> him not
> cooperating.
Perhaps Bryant's survival in the fire was not intended.
>
>
> What was it Howard said about those refugees?
>
> Clutching at straws a bit aren't you? He was either
deliberately or
> inadvertently mislead
> by his own staff and probably the MOD.
Rubbish. Politicians who have reached the top of the heap are
not misled except when they want to be. Their underlings
generally are well informed about the issues on which their
bosses wish to remain uninformed or misled.
Howard is not my favourite pollie,
> but he is not
> a crook and is honest about his intentions, even where they are
misguided.
>
> >Nixon? Clinton? Mitterand? Mugabe? These are just some of
the
> > ones everyone knows about.
>
> So you want to put an Australian Govt in the same league as
'Watergate'
> Nixon, and 'I didn't have sex' Clinton?
Why not?
> Mitterand? What did he do? Not up on French politics.
Let us say he featured strongly in New Zealand politics at the
time of the Rainbow Warrior. Remember now?
> Mugabe?? I'm surprised you mention him in the same sentence.
He's a raving
> nutter and effective dictator.
Hitler, Pol Pot, countless south American 'leaders', Stalin, and
other currently in power in SE Asia. Power corrupts. Absolute
power corrupts absolutely. The evidence surrounds us.
> >
> > It is not just semi-autos. They are just the in end of the
> > wedge. If and when Howard and others of similar mindset get
> > their way there will be no lawfully owned guns, long, short
or
> > anything in between, in Australia, except those held by the
> > police and military.
>
> Lot harder to do than you think. Too many legit people in the
civvie
> population
> have a genuine need for firearms. Particularly in the rural
areas. Target
> shooters
> also have firearms, and even Howard is not keen on taking them
away, as they
> do well for us in international competition and it would make
us a laughing
> stock.
Howard has said that that civilians do not need guns and he does
not want them to have them. That I take at face value. As for
international competition, just look at Britain. Why do you
suppose Howard who says that he wants to get rid of all guns,
will do less?
> Tell me, what is the situation with firearms in NZ these days?
Not trying
> to make
> a point, just asking.
The current Labour government is making noises similar to those
heard in Britain, Canada and Australia. Their progress has been
slower due to in part to the higher gun ownership in NZ, the lack
of any identifiable social distinctions between the gun owning
sector and the non gun owning sector (Note that in Britain the
politicians find it easier to point to them and us on this
issue), the higher proportion of rural dwellers in NZ, the
tourist potential, the normal time lag between political trends
elsewhere and the appearance of those trends in New Zealand, and
last but not least the half wittedness of the current minister
concerned. Perhaps there are other reasons as well but they do
not immediately come to mind. Our mass killing, at Aramoana, did
precipitate a political response in the form of restrictions on
military type semi-automatics. There are still plenty around and
it is likely that more will go underground, in more senses than
one, if the government suddenly goes berserk.
>
>
> Howard says a lot of things. Politicians talk a lot. He would
need a lot
> more support
> from his party and the general populace than he is getting.
The message that I hear is that he got a sudden increase in
public support for his ban after Port Arthur.
Australia's population is now predominantly urban. That is where
the ban-the-gun support comes from, as in Britain. In Britain of
course even more of the population is urban. That is why bliar
can effectively ignore the rural population there.
>
> ?? Which makes him unreliable. If I was driving your
conspiracy bus, I
> would have made sure he was
> killed in the process of being arrested.
He very nearly was.
Anything else just increases the
> risk.
>
> > > Bryant himself admits to being the shooter.
> >
> > After months of solitary confinement and psychological
pressure.
>
> Eh? AFAIK, he never denied from the get go.
In that case there are different stories about when he admitted
it. I understand that months elapsed.
>
> Yeah, the one all the shooting was coming from. Funny about
that.
>
> > He was not bullet wounded. The two rifles, not in operable
> > condition, were found on the roof. He was supposed to have
fired
> > about 300 shots through one or both of these weapons neither
of
> > which were operable.
>
> When they were recovered, however at least one was being used
> to shoot at police (and miss). And your point is?
Neither were operable when recovered and they were only in the
same general area as Bryant.
> Ahem, again, if I were driving your fantastic conspiracy bus, I
would be
> seriously
> against using someone with his mindset or intellect as a patsy
unless it was
> as a dead patsy.
That could have been the intent. But if something goes wrong and
the patsy is going to stay alive there would seem to be a
considerable advantage in having one with as low an IQ as
possible.
>
> > No. And it does not have to be. Hit men can be bought.
They
> > usually are.
>
> So now we are down to the Aust Govt hiring a mafia mechanic?
Oh this just
> gets better.
If the French can do it why not the Australians? Actually the
French used their own armed forces.
> collect his fee. Nope, that's even less likely than your Army
trained
> shooter fantasy.
I never suggested, or even thought, that the Australian Army was
involved.
>
> Yes, you seem to be suggesting that someone else masquerading
as Bryant
> sprayed the room.
That is about the strength of it.
>
> > > > > last minute also high. You would have also needed the
full
> > > > > cooperation of the Police, numerous agents etc
Some top level co-operation.
>
> > The two local police were conveniently a long way off
examining a
> > bottle filled with flour which they had been told was full of
> > drugs. Was Bryant smart enough to decoy the local police
away
> > with a drug hoax?
>
> Possibly. Or it could have been a coincidence by some
concerned citizen who
> really did think it was drugs. It happens.
Too many coincidences.
>
> > > > > Too hard, not enough gain to make it worthwhile, even
> > > > > > assuming a total lack of morals, which I suggest is
not the case
> anyway.
> > > > > Howard is not the kind of person that
> > > > > could order or condone something like this.
Australia has sent troops to various countries where some can
expect to be killed. It is one thing to send troops to defend
Australia. That is what they are for. It is quite another thing
to send them, as considerable risk of being killed, in
furtherance of some political end. When a government can do this
a bunch of tourists is simply another slice off a cut cake.
Another point: I see politicians who appear at public meetings
wearing body armour and surrounded by armed guards as very
fearful of the local population. The politician who is in
constant fear that he may be shot by his own constituents may
well do all in his power to ensure that his constituents do not
have the weapons to do that.
Forty years ago an ordinary person could knock on the door of the
Prime Minister of New Zealand and, as likely as not, he would
open it himself. There were no armed guards around the door,
indeed there were no police at all. This man, and I presume all
his predessors, had no fear that they might be shot by their own
constituents despite the fact that almost every young man had a
.303 rifle leaning against the wall somewhere.
Oddly, you might think, the government of the time was totally
uninterested in firearms control. Now things are very different,
the police maintain a presence around the Prime Minister. One
assumes that they are armed. In Britain this armed police
protection is even more extensive and obvious. Clearly bliar
fears those he governs. So does Howard. So does Clarke. All
are interested in controlling the possession of firearms by their
constituents.
I have no doubt at Menzies and his predecessors were as
approachable as Lloyd George in Britain and Holyoake in New
Zealand. It is a pity that current leaders fear so much those
that they govern. Perhaps they have cause though.
R
Otto Von Bismarck
> "Otto Von Bismarck" <bismar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4de33a52.03011...@posting.google.com...
> > "Scout" <sco...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<yT2U9.5560$Qr4.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> > > "Otto Von Bismarck" <bismar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:4de33a52.03011...@posting.google.com...
> > > > "iCentral" <icen...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> news:<3e2013bf$0$27995$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>...
> > > > > Can we leave your freudian homosexual urges to yourself ?
> > > > > I mention guns and you hear penis ?
> > > >
> > > > What other desperate need could you have to _need_ guns? Simply to
> > > > make up for your lack of manliness? Or is there a better reason?
> > >
> > > Yea, we saw what the Germans did to those "manly" Jews. Sometimes, there
> is
> > > a desperate need to have guns, and usually it's because someone else is
> > > trying to do bad things to you.
> >
> >
> > Dickwad - what is the relevance of that first comment.
>
> Keeeerist...didn't they teach history in your public school when you
> wer....no, don't answer that.
And again I ask the relevance of the holocaust to gun control. Are
you trying to argue it would have not happened if the jews had guns?
That would be a laughable argument.
Rakali
enscribe:
>> Phil Smythe wrote:
>>
> > 1996 gun legislation in Australia was brought about to limit the chances
>of firearm
>> mass-murders. What's happened since?
>>
> > "There have been no mass-murders committed with a firearm since 1995-96.
>Prior to
>> this Australia recorded at least one firearm mass-murder per year (with
>the
>> exception of 1989-90 and 1993-94)" (covering a 12 year period). - Aust
>Institute of
>> Criminology
You gotta love this stuff. Prior to the gun laws, there were mass murders every
year... err... except for the years when there weren't. Since then, Oh look,
Monash... so we'll ban more guns. What about the nutter who went beserk in a
kindergarten with a machete?
>So all the mass murderers turned in their guns? Right!! Can you say naive?
>Sure you can.
>
>Some thoughts towards filling in the gaps in the numerous inductive and
>causal fallicies Smythe commits:
>http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/induct.htm
>http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/causal.htm
>
>
>And the periods prior?
>
>I notice your qualifier "committed with a firearm". Hmmm!!
>
>What is considered "mass murder"?
>
>What percent was the number of weapons turned in of the total in existence?
>I've heard no more than 20%.
Rak
Otto Von Bismarck
> "Otto Von Bismarck" <bismar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4de33a52.03011...@posting.google.com...
> > Thor <m...@me.com> wrote in message
> news:<lic12v8lgeiusjmin...@4ax.com>...
> > > On 11 Jan 2003 16:09:03 -0800, bismar...@hotmail.com (Otto Von
> Bismarck) wrote:
> > > YOUR the one who brought it up...tell ya what sport, next time you are
> confronted by a
> > > criminal I will pull out my gun...you on the other hand can pull out
> your........
> >
> > And you're confronted by someone you think is a criminal. You pull
> > out your weapon and shoot them by mistake.
>
> Just because you go off half-cocked...
Or the many other people where accidental shootings are involved.
> >Or they are ready for you
> > and shoot you and your family. Or shots fire everywhere and many
> > innocent bystanders are hit.
>
> Hmmm...that happens about five times a year NATIONWIDE.
In the US? I find that hard to believe. In Australia, that would be
low because there are not so many guns. Still, tell the five innocent
people that and they probably don't care.
> You know something else, cops have five to seven times the rate of improper
> shootings.
So putting more guns in the hands of civilians in the streets will
help that...?
> > Yep, that's what we need - Dodge City,
> > as that worked so well!! Certainly works well for the gangs in East
> > LA!
>
> I won't go into the six various rules of logic you violate here. That many
> only could be deliberate.
Nice dodge...
Otto Von Bismarck
> > bismar...@hotmail.com (Otto Von Bismarck) wrote <4de33a52.03011...@posting.google.com> in talk.politics.guns. :
>
> >Thor <m...@me.com> wrote in message news:<lic12v8lgeiusjmin...@4ax.com>...
> >> On 11 Jan 2003 16:09:03 -0800, bismar...@hotmail.com (Otto Von Bismarck) wrote:
> >> YOUR the one who brought it up...tell ya what sport, next time you are confronted by a
> >> criminal I will pull out my gun...you on the other hand can pull out your........
> >
> >And you're confronted by someone you think is a criminal. You pull
> >out your weapon and shoot them by mistake.
>
> That depends. What kind of clues are there? Are they inside my home?
> Breaking into my home? Stealing my property?
I've already said I don't really have a serious problem with guns
defending against home invaders. I was talking about guns on the
street.
> Or do they just look like a criminal? How many people get "shot by
> mistake?" Do you think police do it more often, or less often, than
> citizens?
>
> > Or they are ready for you and shoot you and your family.
How are you ready for them if they simply walk up to you and have a
gun in their coat pocket?
> Or you're ready for them and shoot them first.
>
> > Or shots fire everywhere and many innocent bystanders are hit.
>
> Or your shots all hit where they're supposed to and the criminal is
> stopped.
Yeah, that will happen.
Otto Von Bismarck
> >
> > And you're confronted by someone you think is a criminal. You pull
> > out your weapon and shoot them by mistake. Or they are ready for you
> > and shoot you and your family. Or shots fire everywhere and many
> > innocent bystanders are hit. Yep, that's what we need - Dodge City,
> > as that worked so well!! Certainly works well for the gangs in East
> > LA!
> -----
>
> You're projecting YOUR inability to control yourself when armed (and
> confronted) onto others who don't have that problem, Otto. The folks
> who legally carry guns in the U.S. are some of the most law abiding
> citizens in the country. They carry because of the nature of their
> jobs, or because of the known crime problems in their living areas.
I'm not projecting anything. I'm basing it on observations of gun
crimes in the US, use of firearms in other countries, and the danger
that would be most likely occur if firearms were place close at hand
in road rage situations or in the case of domestic upset.
At no point have I argued against people who need guns for their jobs
having them. I am arguing against any man on the street carrying a
gun in public or people who want more than the basic handgun or
shotgun (whichever is more relevant), such as a semi-automatic pistol.
> Australia passed all sorts of gun laws which directly affected
> hundreds of thousands of people who would never even dream of misusing
> their firearms. Of course, those who would misuse them were NOT
> AFFECTED by the laws because "They are criminals" - People who just
> don't care about gun laws.
>
> So, who actually benefited from those laws? It certainly wasn't the
> law abiding gun owners who were forced to hand in their firearms while
> the Criminals KEPT the ones that they had.
And is Australia's gun crime rate as high as the US?
Bert Hyman
bismar...@hotmail.com (Otto Von Bismarck) wrote:
> Robert Frenchu <TheRi...@toughguy.net> wrote in message
> news:<lbo22vcq6j4hsvdkq...@4ax.com>...
>> Or your shots all hit where they're supposed to and the criminal is
>> stopped.
>
> Yeah, that will happen.
Judging by your previous posts, I can only take that as some sort of
ironic comment, meant to mean that you don't believe it.
So, does this mean that you're another of those who believes that only
evil is capable and potent, but at the same time, good people are somehow
rendered incompetent, and will always be unable to defend themselves?
Worse, you appear to believe that not only are good people unable to
defend themselves, but that any attempt to defend themselves will actually
have further bad consequences.
Your apparent belief that the Jews of Europe would have been unable to
escape their fate even if they had been armed would seem to support this.
Quite the nightmare world you live in "Otto".
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@visi.com
Otto Von Bismarck
> I have suggested this myself many times. The only reason that was such a
> disaster
> is because he was the only one with a gun.
Standard pro-gun answer. However, I would point out that most gun
massacres are done by licensed gun owners.
Otto Von Bismarck
> Indeed! But I'm willing to start out small and work my way up. I think my
> desires will be satisfied before I get to the bazooka.
Yours maybe, but what about people who aren't satisfied until they
have an AK47?
> The flamethrower would be a good way to handle some of the weeds in my yard,
> though.
>
> One does not need to articulate a reason to have a gun any more than one
> needs to justify owning computer to anyone.
>
> I feel it behooves me to have both.
How many people do computers kill? A gun was invented, designed and
made for one major purpose - killing. I have no problem with target
shooting, it's fun, but let's not forget the purpose of a gun, like
all weapons.
Otto Von Bismarck
> "Otto Von Bismarck" <bismar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4de33a52.03011...@posting.google.com...
> > I recognise all of these uses and generally have no problem with them.
> > What I have a problem with is the people who think they need lots of
> > guns or need semi-automatic and automatic weapons, or the ability to
> > carry guns on their person. Many arguments are centred around these
> > things.
>
> How many? First of all, you'll find few, if anyone in her who argues from a
> standpoint of need other than typical handguns for self-defense. Desires for
> multiples for collectors, hobbies, sport or competitive shooters isn't your
> concern.
But I'm not arguing against collecting a few simple handguns or
rifles. What I was arguing against is the collection of more
dangerous weapons, such as semi or auto weapons. These are the ones
that are banned.
> If you can find someone ho argued need (outside the above context) I'll like
> to see it, but you can't. You have a nothing argument so you're projecting
> to create a strawman. That's somewhat akin to fraud. So who's the
> lawbreaker, those who pursue legal (so far) activities, or the one
> committing fraud? (You're right on the edge, even in your apparently
> deliberate "tap dancing".
Haven't been tap dancing. I was responding to a comment saying "I
want guns" - this is a silly way to view a very dangerous topic.
Jeffrey C. Dege
Which should indicate that licensing is a waste of time.
--
Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual,
civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry,
openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun,
anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission.
- The Atlanta Declaration
Jeffrey C. Dege
>"PLMerite" <stoc...@smokebombhill.com> wrote in message news:<A_cU9.5399$DQ5....@nwrddc04.gnilink.net>...
>> Indeed! But I'm willing to start out small and work my way up. I think my
>> desires will be satisfied before I get to the bazooka.
>
>Yours maybe, but what about people who aren't satisfied until they
>have an AK47?
On the scale of gee-neato, an AK47 ranks fairly low on the list. It's a
cheap, reliable, rather inaccurate, and rather under-powered rifle.
I'd rather have a Ma Deuce.
>> One does not need to articulate a reason to have a gun any more than one
>> needs to justify owning computer to anyone.
>>
>> I feel it behooves me to have both.
>
>How many people do computers kill? A gun was invented, designed and
>made for one major purpose - killing. I have no problem with target
>shooting, it's fun, but let's not forget the purpose of a gun, like
>all weapons.
Right. And let's not forget that some people need killing.
--
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls
and looks like work.
- Thomas A. Edison
Jeffrey C. Dege
>"Tom S." <tms...@qwest.net> wrote in message news:<wG9U9.17916$ym4.1...@news2.west.cox.net>...
>> standpoint of need other than typical handguns for self-defense. Desires for
>> multiples for collectors, hobbies, sport or competitive shooters isn't your
>> concern.
>
>But I'm not arguing against collecting a few simple handguns or
>rifles. What I was arguing against is the collection of more
>dangerous weapons, such as semi or auto weapons. These are the ones
>that are banned.
You're arguing about distinctions that you clearly don't understand.
--
The major advances in civilization are processes that all but wreck the
societies in which they occur.
-- A.N. Whitehead
Scout
Shows that despite your assertions that people only need them for a "lack of
manlyness" people do indeed need them for defense of themselves and others.
Are
> you trying to argue it would have not happened if the jews had guns?
Well considering jews with but 9 guns held off an entire German division for
several weeks. I can only wonder what a couple of thousand guns could have
done in their hands.
> That would be a laughable argument.
Of course, those willing to deny reality are willing to laugh at facts that
don't suit them.
Scout
Cite please.
PLMerite
"Otto Von Bismarck" <bismar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4de33a52.03011...@posting.google.com...
news:<A_cU9.5399$DQ5....@nwrddc04.gnilink.net>...
> > Indeed! But I'm willing to start out small and work my way up. I think
my
> > desires will be satisfied before I get to the bazooka.
>
> Yours maybe, but what about people who aren't satisfied until they
> have an AK47?
I got news for you pal, you can own fully automatic weapons in the U.S.
The only legal full-auto owner who misued his was a cop, IIRC.
>
> > The flamethrower would be a good way to handle some of the weeds in my
yard,
> > though.
> >
> > One does not need to articulate a reason to have a gun any more than one
> > needs to justify owning computer to anyone.
> >
> > I feel it behooves me to have both.
>
> How many people do computers kill? A gun was invented, designed and
> made for one major purpose - killing. I have no problem with target
> shooting, it's fun, but let's not forget the purpose of a gun, like
> all weapons.
All of my weapons are for killing people.
Target shooting is practice for same.
Unlike some folks, I realize that killing is sometimes necessary, even a
good thing.
People who believe otherwise are deluding themselves, and setting themselves
up to be victims of either the local criminal element, or...others (see
Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.).
Regards, PLMerite
"Unarmed, one can only flee from Evil. But Evil isn't overcome by fleeing
from it. - Jeff Cooper
Tom Woodley
"Otto Von Bismarck" <bismar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4de33a52.03011...@posting.google.com...
news:<lbo22vcq6j4hsvdkq...@4ax.com>...
> > > bismar...@hotmail.com (Otto Von Bismarck) wrote
<4de33a52.03011...@posting.google.com> in talk.politics.guns. :
> >
> > >Thor <m...@me.com> wrote in message
news:<lic12v8lgeiusjmin...@4ax.com>...
> > >> On 11 Jan 2003 16:09:03 -0800, bismar...@hotmail.com (Otto Von
Bismarck) wrote:
> > >> YOUR the one who brought it up...tell ya what sport, next time you
are confronted by a
> > >> criminal I will pull out my gun...you on the other hand can pull out
your........
> > >
> > >And you're confronted by someone you think is a criminal. You pull
> > >out your weapon and shoot them by mistake.
> >
> > That depends. What kind of clues are there? Are they inside my home?
> > Breaking into my home? Stealing my property?
>
> I've already said I don't really have a serious problem with guns
> defending against home invaders. I was talking about guns on the
> street.
Well your worst fears are already realised. Guns, in particular handguns,
are already on the streets, carried by members of teenage gangs and drug
groups. The people who don't have guns with them on the street are law
abiding citizens.
Now that situation may make you feel comfortable but it doesn't do a lot for
my sense of safety. What do you suggest as a solution for the problem I
mentioned above?
Tom Woodley
"Otto Von Bismarck" <bismar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4de33a52.03011...@posting.google.com...
Really?? Let's have some evidence of that.
Robert Frenchu
>Robert Frenchu <TheRi...@toughguy.net> wrote in message news:<lbo22vcq6j4hsvdkq...@4ax.com>...
>> > bismar...@hotmail.com (Otto Von Bismarck) wrote <4de33a52.03011...@posting.google.com> in talk.politics.guns. :
>>
>> >Thor <m...@me.com> wrote in message news:<lic12v8lgeiusjmin...@4ax.com>...
>> >> On 11 Jan 2003 16:09:03 -0800, bismar...@hotmail.com (Otto Von Bismarck) wrote:
>> >> YOUR the one who brought it up...tell ya what sport, next time you are confronted by a
>> >> criminal I will pull out my gun...you on the other hand can pull out your........
>> >
>> >And you're confronted by someone you think is a criminal. You pull
>> >out your weapon and shoot them by mistake.
>>
>> That depends. What kind of clues are there? Are they inside my home?
>> Breaking into my home? Stealing my property?
>
>I've already said I don't really have a serious problem with guns
>defending against home invaders. I was talking about guns on the
>street.
If it was relevant, you should have left it in the post. no matter. Do
you think the average person can't tell when they're being robbed,
attacked, having their property stolen, etc?
>> Or do they just look like a criminal? How many people get "shot by
>> mistake?" Do you think police do it more often, or less often, than
>> citizens?
>>
>> > Or they are ready for you and shoot you and your family.
>
>How are you ready for them if they simply walk up to you and have a
>gun in their coat pocket?
Simple. You have a gun in *your* pocket. And the chances of them
walking up to you to commit a criminal act will be less if they know
THEY are going to get shot.
>> Or you're ready for them and shoot them first.
>>
>> > Or shots fire everywhere and many innocent bystanders are hit.
>>
>> Or your shots all hit where they're supposed to and the criminal is
>> stopped.
>
>Yeah, that will happen.
I'm glad you agree.
Harrigan
"Otto Von Bismarck" <bismar...@hotmail.com> wrote...
> "M. Eglestone" <sms...@bellsouth.net> wrote ...
> > > Otto Von Bismarck wrote:
> > >
> > > And you're confronted by someone you think is a criminal. You pull
> > > out your weapon and shoot them by mistake. Or they are ready for you
> > > and shoot you and your family. Or shots fire everywhere and many
> > > innocent bystanders are hit. Yep, that's what we need - Dodge City,
> > > as that worked so well!! Certainly works well for the gangs in East
> > > LA!
> > -----
> >
> > You're projecting YOUR inability to control yourself when armed (and
> > confronted) onto others who don't have that problem, Otto. The folks
> > who legally carry guns in the U.S. are some of the most law abiding
> > citizens in the country. They carry because of the nature of their
> > jobs, or because of the known crime problems in their living areas.
>
> I'm not projecting anything. I'm basing it on observations of gun
> crimes in the US, use of firearms in other countries, and the danger
> that would be most likely occur if firearms were place close at hand
> in road rage situations or in the case of domestic upset.
Once again, you are projecting onto someone else your imagined worst-case
scenarion - which is insulting at best. If someone does something wrong,
then nail them - but do not punish everyone just on the offhand one of them
might misbehave - unless, of course, you are prepared to accept village
warders who will shackle all to their beds promptly at 10:00 PM to prevent
crime at night....
> At no point have I argued against people who need guns for their jobs
> having them. I am arguing against any man on the street carrying a
> gun in public or people who want more than the basic handgun or
> shotgun (whichever is more relevant), such as a semi-automatic pistol.
Once again, for what reason? Who are you to judge need? Are you prepared to
accept MY demand that you be chackled to your bed lest you have an erotic
fantasy and decide to molest my lovely 20-year-old daughter? You might,
you know, and we couldn't have that - and the only way to assure that it
can't happen is simply to shackle everyone to bed during conventional
sleeping hours. What;s that you say, nobody has a reason to believe you
might do that? Well, nobody has a reason to suspect I might shoot someone,
but you've stated that you'd summarily remove my guns because of what your
imagination suggests I might do with them.
> > Australia passed all sorts of gun laws which directly affected
> > hundreds of thousands of people who would never even dream of misusing
> > their firearms. Of course, those who would misuse them were NOT
> > AFFECTED by the laws because "They are criminals" - People who just
> > don't care about gun laws.
> >
> > So, who actually benefited from those laws? It certainly wasn't the
> > law abiding gun owners who were forced to hand in their firearms while
> > the Criminals KEPT the ones that they had.
>
> And is Australia's gun crime rate as high as the US?
It IS rising - and ours IS falling - particularly in areas where concealed
carry permits are becoming more readily available.
It really is not your business what I choose to own. Until such a time as I
use it for evil, it should be of supreme indifference to you - as should
what you choose to own be to me. Need is not a matter for anyone to judge,
nor should it be a basis to permit or to deny ownership.
If you disagree, be prepared to defend your ownership of anything in your
home that has ever been used to hurt or to hill a person - including
appliances and vehicles....
Harrigan
How many have there been?
How many massacres by other means (firebombs, etc?) and what was the body
count?
Harrigan
"Otto Von Bismarck" <bismar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4de33a52.03011...@posting.google.com...
If that is what you choose to believe, then I cannot change your mind. None
of mine has ever killed anything but rats, although on a few occasions one
of my pistols has stopped threats on my person - but it hasn't been
necessary to fire it to do so (although I would have fired it if a few
things had happened another way.) The purpose of a gun is to place a
projectile in a certain place - preferably where you wanted it placed.
In the case of self defense use of a handgun, the purpose is to stop the
advancing threat. That is all, and that is standard police doctrine - shoot
to stop the threat. Shooting to kill is wrong - it takes a head shot to
guarantee that, and that is too demanding a shot for most high-stress
confrontational circumstances. The doctrine is that the threat that is
advancing must not be alliwed to get within 7 meters - and if it advances
within 7 meters, shoot it twice in the center of its mass, remove the finger
completely from the trigger and the trigger guard, assess the results, and
if the threat continues to advance, repeat the action. If the threat
continues after the second shots to advance consider moving the aim point to
the pelvic region, but do not stop the process until the threat ceases to
advance. If the threat ceases to advance, that can mean it has stopped
moving, is going away, or is on the ground - in any of these cases, there is
no reason to shoot again. Civilians may not shoot a threat that is leaving
as it is no longer a threat - the rules for the police are different, but I
cannot speak to them as I am not a police officer, just an armed civilian.
It is important to note that the mindset must always remain that of stopping
an advancing threat. At no time may an armed civilian or a police officer
develop such a callous disregard for life that it becomes a normal part of
his life to consider the taking of life to be a part of the normal day.
Harrigan
>
> "Otto Von Bismarck" <bismar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4de33a52.03011...@posting.google.com...
> > "PLMerite" <stoc...@smokebombhill.com> wrote in message
> news:<A_cU9.5399$DQ5....@nwrddc04.gnilink.net>...
> > > Indeed! But I'm willing to start out small and work my way up. I
think
> my
> > > desires will be satisfied before I get to the bazooka.
> >
> > Yours maybe, but what about people who aren't satisfied until they
> > have an AK47?
>
> I got news for you pal, you can own fully automatic weapons in the U.S.
>
> The only legal full-auto owner who misued his was a cop, IIRC.
Funny enough, it wasn't even his - it was one he had checked out of his own
department's armory!
Harrigan
> > "Otto Von Bismarck" <bismar...@hotmail.com> wrote...
> > > I recognise all of these uses and generally have no problem with them.
> > > What I have a problem with is the people who think they need lots of
> > > guns or need semi-automatic and automatic weapons, or the ability to
> > > carry guns on their person. Many arguments are centred around these
> > > things.
> >
> > How many? First of all, you'll find few, if anyone in her who argues
from a
> > standpoint of need other than typical handguns for self-defense. Desires
for
> > multiples for collectors, hobbies, sport or competitive shooters isn't
your
> > concern.
>
> But I'm not arguing against collecting a few simple handguns or
> rifles. What I was arguing against is the collection of more
> dangerous weapons, such as semi or auto weapons. These are the ones
> that are banned.
I can have a full auto weapon if I want one - all I have to do is find it,
buy it, and pay the tax on it. Nothing new there. It's a little hard to
find a place to shoot one, and they are damnall expensive to feed, but
there's no law against owning one, only against owning one without having
paid the tax on it.
As a matter of fact, there are no guns (other than those that have
mechanical defects) that are by their nature dangerous, except for some of
the heave machine guns that can hurt you badly if they fall on you. Not a
single one of myne has ever unlocked the save, unlocked the ammo case,
loaded itself, marched up the stairs, unlocked the door, and wandered down
the street shooting at houses, neighbors and their children and/or dogs.
Tom S.
>
> "Otto Von Bismarck" <bismar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4de33a52.03011...@posting.google.com...
> > "PLMerite" <stoc...@smokebombhill.com> wrote in message
> news:<A_cU9.5399$DQ5....@nwrddc04.gnilink.net>...
> > > Indeed! But I'm willing to start out small and work my way up. I
think
> my
> > > desires will be satisfied before I get to the bazooka.
> >
> > Yours maybe, but what about people who aren't satisfied until they
> > have an AK47?
>
> I got news for you pal, you can own fully automatic weapons in the U.S.
>
> The only legal full-auto owner who misued his was a cop, IIRC.
Cop in Cincinnatti -- used it to kill an informant.
Tom S.
"Lady Liberty" <LadyL...@UPAlliance.orgXYY> wrote in message
news:3e223066$1...@omega.dimensional.com...
> "Harrigan" <raru...@NOSPAM.netzero.net> said, and I quote:
>
> >
> > "Otto Von Bismarck" <bismar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:4de33a52.03011...@posting.google.com...
> >> "PLMerite" <stoc...@smokebombhill.com> wrote in message
> > news:<A_cU9.5399$DQ5....@nwrddc04.gnilink.net>...
> >> > Indeed! But I'm willing to start out small and work my way up. I
> >> > think
> > my
> >> > desires will be satisfied before I get to the bazooka.
> >>
> >> Yours maybe, but what about people who aren't satisfied until they
> >> have an AK47?
>
> Anyone feeling generous out there, who would like to help me fulfill my
> dream?
>
> http://www.auctionarms.com/search/displayitem.cfm?ItemNum=3778293
I need three...one for each hand and one for spare parts.
Tom S.
"Lady Liberty" <LadyL...@UPAlliance.orgXYY> wrote in message
news:3e223066$1...@omega.dimensional.com...
> "Harrigan" <raru...@NOSPAM.netzero.net> said, and I quote:
>
> >
> > news:4de33a52.03011...@posting.google.com...
> >> "PLMerite" <stoc...@smokebombhill.com> wrote in message
> > news:<A_cU9.5399$DQ5....@nwrddc04.gnilink.net>...
> >> > Indeed! But I'm willing to start out small and work my way up. I
> >> > think
> > my
> >> > desires will be satisfied before I get to the bazooka.
> >>
> >> Yours maybe, but what about people who aren't satisfied until they
> >> have an AK47?
>
> Anyone feeling generous out there, who would like to help me fulfill my
> dream?
>
> http://www.auctionarms.com/search/displayitem.cfm?ItemNum=3778293
http://www.shooterstore.com/acb/showprod.cfm?st=0&st2=0&st3=0&ObjectGroup_ID
=1636&CATID=600&DID=111
$30 less, plus better prices on mags...
Peter Wiley
> The CO wrote in message <83WT9.16$IW4....@vicpull1.telstra.net>...> >news:3e201803$0$27995$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> >> I believe there is a lot of truth in what both the CO and Roger are
> >saying.
> >
> >Well to be honest, whilst I have difficulty finding much truth in Roger's
> >conspiracy theory,
> >he strikes me as reasonably cluey, which is why I am a little surprised
> that
> >he would
> >endorse this rather way out conspiracy idea which seems to have been
> dreamed
> >up by a
> >known kook in WA.
> >
> >> It's great to have a ng where ppl actually know something about the
> >subject.
> >
> >There are certainly some very clued up people in here, in various
> >specialties.
> >
> >The CO
>
>
> Hints:
>
> 1. There has never been a coronial inquest. If 20 people get killed in a
> bus accident or 3 people get killed in a car accident etc.... or some silly
> bugger collides his ship with a bridge in Tas.......
>
> 2. Sydney Sparkes Orr - University of Tasmania. Check it out if you want
> to see what real bastardry can go on, particularly in Tasmania. Liberal
> Party and the judiciary, coincidentally of course! From memory that took
> something like 20 years to be sorted out.
>
> 3. Who planted the false heroin dump to ensure the 2 coppers were away that
> day? And who rang the coppers to tell them about it? Martin? Phone
> records?
>
> Er, 4. I've been a competitive rifle and pistol shooter since 1958. I've
> got a certificate of appreciation from the police for helping them train,
> was a State Team member and am a Level 3 coach etc.
> No, I'm not good enough for the results in the cafe.
> Maybe my IQ is too high?
> Pisses me off a bit though to think I've been shooting all that time and a
> bloke who has been doing a little bit of practice in the scrub is so much
> better, particularly when he's using the thing right-hnded and he's really
> left-handed - - - that gets up my nose like a ferret.......
1. I've lived here on & off since 1997, shared a place with a person
who knew some of the victims, one of the first ambo drivers on the
scene as well. It's a small place really. I've *never* heard any local
talk of it being a conspiracy. People talk about other instances of
things that have been covered up including what looks very like a
deliberate murder by a police sniper, but zilch on Byrant. I think
it's highly likely that he did it all by his lonesome.
2. I'm left handed and can shoot either side. I don't really believe
it's that hard to murder people in a cafe. Bombed up mobs of goats
using big magazine semiautos in the past and the litter of dead goats
was something to behold. Lot easier when they can't run off, too.
Sorry Roger, I think Bryant did it. May he live a long, unhappy life
locked up with everyone making his remaining time as miserable as
possible.
Peter Wiley
PS: Dropped you a line a couple weeks ago. Send me a note off-n/g. I'm
not bothering much with a.p these days; s/n sucks. OTOH we've got a
nice little flamewar going on guns with the Brits on alt.sailing.asa
:-)
30C in Hobart today. Might as well move back north; there's not much
further south I can go. Year on Macca is looking good.......