TASMANIA - gun law changes won't work.
Daniel Meijer
Jeremy Kelaher (jer...@ot.com.au) wrote:
: Come on - trot out your stupid excuses
Hmmm. You know, people want tighter gun laws because they think this will
magically solve the problem of firearm-related killings. Wake up.
Narcotics are banned. However, if you want them, yo just have to have the
$ and the contacts. Narcotics kill more people than guns ever have in
australia. Imposing a law or a ban on something doesn't stop the problem.
The UK has much tighter gun laws than we do....and they still had Dunblane.
Tassy's open gun laws in the last few years have led to the importation
of many militay rifles....
[BTW thw weapon used in port arthur was an AR-15, a cut down M-16. That's
a rifle that is designed as fully automatic, with a semi-auto option
switch. Media shou;ld get their facts straight.]
...which may well have been taken across Bass Strait to the mainland,
regardless of the laws. Who knows how many semi- and fully-auto rifles
are around. The SKS used in the strathfield massacre was and is illegal
in NSW but it was still used.
Rego of firearms is good. No-one's disputing that. But you know, not all
gun owners even have licenses, as we found out in port arthur. So why
would people register their weapons? Its nice to say "Its the law to rego
your gun" but will people actually do it? I support firearm registration,
but I don't think its going to be as effective as the anti-gun lobby make
out. The semi and fully autos will remain obtainable on the black market,
and if you want to go and kill people, the weapons will always be available.
As for why have a gun at all, did you know that rifles can be collectors'
items? Say a WWII .303 lee enfield in perfect working condition. You'll
probably find that most gun owners are actually sensible, and keep the
bolt stored securely away from their rifles. And as for disabling the
weapon, by say, drilling out the barrel....well if you had a mint vintage
car, you wouldnt rip out the engine would you?
I think a large proportio of the anti-gun lobby have little or no
experience with firearms, and so don't know their subject too well....and
it seems they havent considered whether or not their proposed legal
changes will actually work.....I support gun rego but, hey, do you REALLY
think it'll stop people committing murders?
--
||||||||
| ^ ^ |
(| * * |)
--------oOOo---(__)---oOOo--------
Daniel Meijer - Sydney, Australia.
dme...@zeta.org.au
p303...@hardy.ocs.mq.edu.au
----------------------------------
David Bromage
Merlin Zener (mer...@ion.com.au) wrote:
>rip...@zeta.org.au wrote:
>>
>> [...big snip]
>>
>> I cannot think of one good reason why anyone should need to have a
>> weapon at home.
>
>Well the most obvious is to protect yourself!!!
Against all the other hooligans with guns....
>How about this: the reason that one surfie was able to kill so many
>people was that no-one was able to stand up to him. Why? Because he
>was the only one with the gun!
>If there had been *anyone* else there when he started shooting there's
>a very good chance he would have been wasted after only shooting, say,
>2 or 3 people. Think of it: 30 or so families spared the trauma of
>having to bury their loved ones...
Or maybe being shot at may have enraged him even more. With more bullets
flying around, MORE people could have been hit. There is a difference
between sniping and a shootout.
More guns != safe.
Cheers
David
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Bromage dbro...@metz.une.edu.au
Department of Chemistry
University of New England "On the Internet people who are normally
Armidale, NSW 2351 under rocks are out there and in your
Australia face" - Douglas Adams
Longhair
dme...@godzilla.zeta.org.au (Daniel Meijer) wrote:
: switch. Media shou;ld get their facts straight.]
You may have noticed the many changing stories as the drama unfolded.
They've been saying the gunman drove a Volkswgagon carrying a
surfboard on the roof, but didn't that car look like a yellow Volvo on
the 6pm edition of Seven Nightly News.
Newspapers don't know the truth, so they make it up. Same goes for
television. Do you blame them though, they're obligated to tell the
rest of us something aren't they?
Later,
---
Longhair -:- Email: long...@dove.mtx.net.au
23yo Aussie male, thriving in Adelaide, South Australia
Longhair's Loungeroom~ http://dove.mtx.net.au/~longhair
Pink Floyd~ http://dove.mtx.net.au/~longhair/floyd.html
"If the world sucked I'd be first in line..."-Longhair.
---
Longhair
long...@dove.mtx.net.au (Longhair) wrote:
: the 6pm edition of Seven Nightly News.
Sorry, I'll rephrase that!
The all new 'Two Hour Edition' of the 'Seven Nightly News'
rip...@zeta.org.au
dme...@godzilla.zeta.org.au (Daniel Meijer) wrote:
>Jeremy Kelaher (jer...@ot.com.au) wrote:
>: Come on - trot out your stupid excuses
>Hmmm. You know, people want tighter gun laws because they think this will
>magically solve the problem of firearm-related killings. Wake up.
>Narcotics are banned. However, if you want them, yo just have to have the
>$ and the contacts. Narcotics kill more people than guns ever have in
>australia. Imposing a law or a ban on something doesn't stop the problem.
>The UK has much tighter gun laws than we do....and they still had Dunblane.
It may not solve the problem but it sure as hell will discourage a lot
of people from obtaining weapons if it is made difficult to do so.
The less weapons around, hopefully = less incidents such as Port
Arthur etc.
>Tassy's open gun laws in the last few years have led to the importation
>of many militay rifles....
>[BTW thw weapon used in port arthur was an AR-15, a cut down M-16. That's
>a rifle that is designed as fully automatic, with a semi-auto option
>switch. Media shou;ld get their facts straight.]
>...which may well have been taken across Bass Strait to the mainland,
>regardless of the laws. Who knows how many semi- and fully-auto rifles
>are around. The SKS used in the strathfield massacre was and is illegal
>in NSW but it was still used.
Tassies virtually non-existent gun laws don't you mean? I read
somewhere that licenses were introduced only very recently and that it
was a one-off payment of $30 for life (true?). If Tassie had tighter
gun laws, it tends toward the conclusion (judging by what you say
above) that less weapons would find their way to the mainland.
>Rego of firearms is good. No-one's disputing that. But you know, not all
>gun owners even have licenses, as we found out in port arthur. So why
>would people register their weapons? Its nice to say "Its the law to rego
>your gun" but will people actually do it? I support firearm registration,
>but I don't think its going to be as effective as the anti-gun lobby make
>out. The semi and fully autos will remain obtainable on the black market,
>and if you want to go and kill people, the weapons will always be available.
I cannot think of one good reason why anyone should need to have a
weapon at home. OK if you are a collector, why not lodge the firing
pin/bolt with the local police at time of registration. If you want
it for protection this means you are likely to have the gun loaded and
ready to go in which case you are exposed to the possibility of a
child getting hold of the weapon - not to mention that you are putting
yourself (and family?) in a very compromising position if you are not
prepared to use it once you have produced it.
If you are a hobby/sporting shooter, then shooting clubs should
provide facilities for the storage of weapons.
The only exceptions I can think of are those on rural properties who
need a weapon for the purpose of protecting crops etc from animals
such as wild boar.
>As for why have a gun at all, did you know that rifles can be collectors'
>items? Say a WWII .303 lee enfield in perfect working condition. You'll
>probably find that most gun owners are actually sensible, and keep the
>bolt stored securely away from their rifles. And as for disabling the
>weapon, by say, drilling out the barrel....well if you had a mint vintage
>car, you wouldnt rip out the engine would you?
See above.
>I think a large proportio of the anti-gun lobby have little or no
>experience with firearms, and so don't know their subject too well....and
>it seems they havent considered whether or not their proposed legal
>changes will actually work.....I support gun rego but, hey, do you REALLY
>think it'll stop people committing murders?
Not necessarliy. I believe that a large proportion of the anti-gun
lobby have seen too many instances of what guns can do in the wrong
hands. Most killings are not pre-meditated, meaning that a person
with a gun (regardless of the reason they purchased it in the first
place) is capable of using it against another person in the right
circumstances - ie, under stress, relationship breakdowns, employment
problems, financial problems etc etc. We have seen too many cases of
husbands in financial strife who have taken their families with them
in murder/suicide scenarios.
The other problem with guns is that they are too impersonal - it is
much easier to shoot someone than say stab or beat them to death,
because it can be done from a distance with no physical contact
involved.
I'm afraid this anti-gun/pro-gun argument is one that will never be
resolved as on both sides of the fence it is argued that personal
liberties are being infringed upon. Tell me who you think would feel
more hard done by - a person who has had their weapon taken away or
someone who has had a family member or friend taken away? An
emotional argument - yes, but an extremely valid one none-the-less.
regards, Tim...
Merlin Zener
rip...@zeta.org.au wrote:
>
> [...big snip]
>
> I cannot think of one good reason why anyone should need to have a
> weapon at home.
Well the most obvious is to protect yourself!!!
How about this: the reason that one surfie was able to kill so many
people was that no-one was able to stand up to him. Why? Because he
was the only one with the gun!
If there had been *anyone* else there when he started shooting there's
a very good chance he would have been wasted after only shooting, say,
2 or 3 people. Think of it: 30 or so families spared the trauma of
having to bury their loved ones...
--
Merlin Zener phone (+61) (0)18 779 594
Musician, Technician fax (+61) (0)7 5578 5011
Gold Coast, Australia email mer...@ion.com.au
http://www.ion.com.au/~merlin
"research shows that no-one ever went blind from
looking on the bright side of life"
Qcumber
In article <4m24hd$l...@gidora.kralizec.net.au>,
dme...@godzilla.zeta.org.au (Daniel Meijer) wrote:
> Jeremy Kelaher (jer...@ot.com.au) wrote:
> : Come on - trot out your stupid excuses
>
> Hmmm. You know, people want tighter gun laws because they think this will
> magically solve the problem of firearm-related killings. Wake up.
Its either death or life inprisonment if you are caught with illegal
firearms and live amunnition in Malaysia and Singapore. Have you *ever*
heard of any gunmen going amok there? Magic isn't it!
Brian
On Tue, 30 Apr 1996, Merlin Zener wrote:
> rip...@zeta.org.au wrote:
> >
> > [...big snip]
> >
> > I cannot think of one good reason why anyone should need to have a
> > weapon at home.
>
> Well the most obvious is to protect yourself!!!
If no one has a gun, then you won't need one to "defend yourself"
with one, now will you?
More guns in society is not the solution to violence in our society!
More guns only make it easier for people to commit _more_
violence, not _less_ violence!
Just look at America where guns are so easily available.
--Brian Ross--------------------------------------------------------------------
"There can be no more melancholy, nor in the last result, no more degrading
spectacle on earth than the spectacle of oppression, or of wrong in whatever
form, inflicted by the deliberate act of a nation upon another nation..Gladstone
David Poulter
>> weapon at home.
>
>
>people was that no-one was able to stand up to him. Why? Because he
>was the only one with the gun!
More Ravings deleted
>Merlin Zener phone (+61) (0)18 779 594
>Musician, Technician fax (+61) (0)7 5578 5011
>Gold Coast, Australia email mer...@ion.com.au
> http://www.ion.com.au/~merlin
What kind of idiot argument is this.
So if people were allowed to carry hand guns their would have been a
fire fight with heaps of inocent people caught in the middle as lots of
untrained amateur Rambos tried to take out someone with a much more
powerful wepon. Don't be stupid. The death toll could have been far
higher.
The facts are simple. The more guns there are, the more murders there
are using guns. Just look at the stats. Someone with even your
itelligence will be able to see the correlation. No one is arguing that
even the tightest gun control laws will prevent events like this
totally. However, they will limit their frequency.
As for the argument that will undoubtedly come up that criminals will
always get guns. True, proffessional criminals will always get guns. But
the majority of gun murders aren't by proffessional criminals. Rather
they are committed in domestic disputes or situations like this where
someone loses it. Clearly gun access is an issue here and restricting
that access will save lives by not only limiting incidents like Port
Arthur, Stratfield, Hoddle St etc but also by preventing incidents where
someone takes to their family during the heat of a domestic dispute.
Your statement is a dissgrace and is an attempt to trivialise the issue.
It is people like you who help feed the gun lobby and the pressure they
apply to politicians. Until this pressure is reduced and the political
will exists to restrict access, particularly for the type of gun used at
Port Arthur, these events will keep happening.
BENJAMIN PETERS
: > I cannot think of one good reason why anyone should need to have a
: > weapon at home.
: Well the most obvious is to protect yourself!!!
God help us if we keep going down this path that is gradually
turning our _safe_ country, into an everyone-for-themselves kind
of country that you are touting.
If you don't have a gun, you can't shoot anyone with it...
If they don't have a gun, they can't shoot you with it either...
All you rednecks ought to give it a rest and join us here in the
20th century (or at least move to the deep south of the USA where
you belong).
...and isn't it typical of right-wing governments in this country...
to plod along the reactive social path...oooh, dozens of innocent
people have been slaughtered...better have an emergency summit about
gun laws... Get real, fascists!!!
Ben PETERS
(Flame me if you dare)
Gareth Bull
dbro...@metz.une.edu.au (David Bromage) writes:
> Merlin Zener (mer...@ion.com.au) wrote:
>>rip...@zeta.org.au wrote:
>>>
>>> [...big snip]
>>>
>>> I cannot think of one good reason why anyone should need to have a
>>> weapon at home.
>>
>>Well the most obvious is to protect yourself!!!
>
> Against all the other hooligans with guns....
>
>>How about this: the reason that one surfie was able to kill so many
>>people was that no-one was able to stand up to him. Why? Because he
>>was the only one with the gun!
>>If there had been *anyone* else there when he started shooting there's
>>a very good chance he would have been wasted after only shooting, say,
>>2 or 3 people. Think of it: 30 or so families spared the trauma of
>>having to bury their loved ones...
So you suggest that people should carry guns and ammunition around with them
just in case they're attacked?
Can you even begin to imagine the consequences of something like that? People
wandering around with guns because they are afraid for their personal
safety are more likely to shoot first and ask questions later. In the mean
time how many innocent people will be killed because someone with a gun
made a mistake about what someone else was doing and shot first? I am *for*
everyone's right to go about their business in peace and safety, but
encouraging people to walk around with the power of life & death in their
pocket/holster/handbag is not IMO a reasonable way to handle personal
safety.
I am neither anti-gun nor pro-gun. I grew up on a farm and learned how to
handle guns in a responsible manner when I was in early highschool.
> Or maybe being shot at may have enraged him even more. With more bullets
> flying around, MORE people could have been hit. There is a difference
> between sniping and a shootout.
>
> More guns != safe.
I think this issue comes down to an all too familiar argument of: When is it
appropriate to curtail the freedoms of one section of the community in order
to preserve the freedoms of another section of the community? In this case,
the priviledge (I do not consider gun ownership a "right" in today's society)
to own a gun vs the threat of gun misuse by irresponsible/irrational people.
Personally, if it was within my power to decide, I would not ban guns, but
I would place stricter controls over ownership, use and storage. Unfortunately
there are people who would rather hang onto certain guns illegally in the
face of having to give them up (eg: miltary style automatic guns).
Garet...@cc.monash.edu.au
DOD# 251 '84 VF 750 Closet Ducatisto
Disclaimer: I'm just a jay walker on the Information Superhighway!
Paul Mack
Respondence for Qcumber <o...@eskimo.com> ...
G'day Qcumber,
On Mon, 29 Apr 1996 17:20:58 GMT,
Qcumber <o...@eskimo.com>
wrote to everyone ...
Umm ... was it around 1968 when the Indians tried to wipe out the chinese?
Last year a gunman run amok at a bbq in Petaling Jaya ...
Regards, Paul.
_\/_
. / \ .
|\| (o)(o) |/|
---.OOOo--oo--oOOO.----
| Paul Mack resides in |
| Melbourne, Australia. |
------------Oooo.------
.oooO ( )
( ) ) / ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
\ ( (_/ :: Paul Mack <paul...@melbpc.org.au> ::
\_) ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
>> Ridicule enjoys more power than severity ... <<
Mark Addinall
Daniel Meijer (dme...@godzilla.zeta.org.au) wrote:
: Jeremy Kelaher (jer...@ot.com.au) wrote:
: : Come on - trot out your stupid excuses
: Hmmm. You know, people want tighter gun laws because they think this will
: magically solve the problem of firearm-related killings. Wake up.
: Narcotics are banned. However, if you want them, yo just have to have the
: $ and the contacts. Narcotics kill more people than guns ever have in
: australia. Imposing a law or a ban on something doesn't stop the problem.
: The UK has much tighter gun laws than we do....and they still had Dunblane.
In the period of 1973 to 1994 the number of gun permits in the UK
decreased from 185,000 to 135,000 as a result of the political push
to 'ban' guns from the public. This was perceived (incorrectly) to be
a method of curtailing people from killing each other. In the same
period, robberies involving firearms increased from 62 to 5987.
What does that tell us? The problem is not guns. It's society.
: Tassy's open gun laws in the last few years have led to the importation
: of many militay rifles....
: [BTW thw weapon used in port arthur was an AR-15, a cut down M-16. That's
: a rifle that is designed as fully automatic, with a semi-auto option
: switch. Media shou;ld get their facts straight.]
Agree about the point of the media, but an AR-15 is a completely
different weapon to a M-16. They look similar and are chambered in
.223 (the AR is also available in 7.62).
: ...which may well have been taken across Bass Strait to the mainland,
: regardless of the laws. Who knows how many semi- and fully-auto rifles
: are around. The SKS used in the strathfield massacre was and is illegal
: in NSW but it was still used.
: Rego of firearms is good. No-one's disputing that.
I do, and strongly. Ask a victorian policeman (woman) if gun
registration serves any purpose.
: But you know, not all
: gun owners even have licenses, as we found out in port arthur. So why
: would people register their weapons? Its nice to say "Its the law to rego
: your gun" but will people actually do it? I support firearm registration,
: but I don't think its going to be as effective as the anti-gun lobby make
: out. The semi and fully autos will remain obtainable on the black market,
: and if you want to go and kill people, the weapons will always be available.
: As for why have a gun at all, did you know that rifles can be collectors'
: items? Say a WWII .303 lee enfield in perfect working condition. You'll
: probably find that most gun owners are actually sensible, and keep the
: bolt stored securely away from their rifles. And as for disabling the
: weapon, by say, drilling out the barrel....well if you had a mint vintage
: car, you wouldnt rip out the engine would you?
: I think a large proportio of the anti-gun lobby have little or no
: experience with firearms, and so don't know their subject too well....and
: it seems they havent considered whether or not their proposed legal
: changes will actually work.....I support gun rego but, hey, do you REALLY
: think it'll stop people committing murders?
No, of course it will not. The idea is simply foolish.
: --
: ||||||||
: | ^ ^ |
: (| * * |)
: --------oOOo---(__)---oOOo--------
: Daniel Meijer - Sydney, Australia.
: dme...@zeta.org.au
: p303...@hardy.ocs.mq.edu.au
: ----------------------------------
Mark.
Mark Addinall
David Bromage (dbro...@metz.une.edu.au) wrote:: >>
: >> I cannot think of one good reason why anyone should need to have a
: >> weapon at home.
: >
: >Well the most obvious is to protect yourself!!!
: Against all the other hooligans with guns....
Correct.
: >How about this: the reason that one surfie was able to kill so many
: >people was that no-one was able to stand up to him. Why? Because he
: >was the only one with the gun!
: >If there had been *anyone* else there when he started shooting there's
: >a very good chance he would have been wasted after only shooting, say,
: >2 or 3 people. Think of it: 30 or so families spared the trauma of
: >having to bury their loved ones...
: Or maybe being shot at may have enraged him even more. With more bullets
: flying around, MORE people could have been hit. There is a difference
: between sniping and a shootout.
You have first hand experience I take it. I think if someone had the
ability to unload a clip into his chest, a lot of families would be
feeling a little better today.
: More guns != safe.
Agreed. One each will be just fine. I prefer a glock, as does the missus.
: Cheers
: David
: -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
: David Bromage dbro...@metz.une.edu.au
: Department of Chemistry
: University of New England "On the Internet people who are normally
: Armidale, NSW 2351 under rocks are out there and in your
: Australia face" - Douglas Adams
Mark.
Mark Addinall
Brian (br...@coombs.anu.edu.au) wrote:
: On Tue, 30 Apr 1996, Merlin Zener wrote:
: > rip...@zeta.org.au wrote:
: > >
: > > [...big snip]
: > >
: > > I cannot think of one good reason why anyone should need to have a
: > > weapon at home.
: >
: > Well the most obvious is to protect yourself!!!
: If no one has a gun, then you won't need one to "defend yourself"
: with one, now will you?
So, Oh learned one. Just how do you propose disarming the planet Earth?
: More guns in society is not the solution to violence in our society!
Correct, but an armed society is a polite society.
: More guns only make it easier for people to commit _more_
: violence, not _less_ violence!
Incorrect. High school logic would throw that argument down.
: Just look at America where guns are so easily available.
Where in America? Would you really like to discuss this issue
sensibly, or would you prefer to just have a little angst
attack and back away?
Do you want to have a look at some worldwide homicide stats?
: --Brian Ross--------------------------------------------------------------------
: "There can be no more melancholy, nor in the last result, no more degrading
: spectacle on earth than the spectacle of oppression, or of wrong in whatever
: form, inflicted by the deliberate act of a nation upon another nation..Gladstone
Mark.
Kym Horsell
In article <4m24hd$l...@gidora.kralizec.net.au>,
Daniel Meijer <dme...@godzilla.zeta.org.au> wrote:
>Jeremy Kelaher (jer...@ot.com.au) wrote:
>: Come on - trot out your stupid excuses
>
>Hmmm. You know, people want tighter gun laws because they think this will
>magically solve the problem of firearm-related killings. Wake up.
>Narcotics are banned. However, if you want them, yo just have to have the
>$ and the contacts. Narcotics kill more people than guns ever have in
>australia. Imposing a law or a ban on something doesn't stop the problem.
>The UK has much tighter gun laws than we do....and they still had Dunblane.
>
I 2nd the "wake up" call:
Here are some interesting stats -- including Dunblane --
Deaths from "lone gunmen":
Country Pop'n Deaths
Britain 56 mn 70 TOTAL
Australia 18 mn 520 pa
USA 280 mn 40K pa
(These numbers may have some "apples and oranges" content)
--
R. Kym Horsell
KHor...@EE.Latrobe.EDU.AU k...@CS.Binghamton.EDU
http://WWW.EE.LaTrobe.EDU.AU/~khorsell http://CS.Binghamton.EDU/~kym
Mark Addinall
David Poulter (dpou...@dpie.gov.au) wrote:: >> I cannot think of one good reason why anyone should need to have a
: >> weapon at home.
: >Well the most obvious is to protect yourself!!!
: >
: >people was that no-one was able to stand up to him. Why? Because he
: >was the only one with the gun!
: More Ravings deleted
: >Merlin Zener phone (+61) (0)18 779 594
: >Musician, Technician fax (+61) (0)7 5578 5011
: >Gold Coast, Australia email mer...@ion.com.au
: > http://www.ion.com.au/~merlin
: What kind of idiot argument is this.
: So if people were allowed to carry hand guns their would have been a
: fire fight with heaps of inocent people caught in the middle as lots of
: untrained amateur Rambos tried to take out someone with a much more
: powerful wepon. Don't be stupid. The death toll could have been far
: higher.
Or a lot less.
: The facts are simple. The more guns there are, the more murders there
: are using guns. Just look at the stats. Someone with even your
: itelligence will be able to see the correlation.
Please post your well researched sources. Sonja, It's the
'correlation' word.
: No one is arguing that
: even the tightest gun control laws will prevent events like this
: totally. However, they will limit their frequency.
Sources, methods and data this time.
: As for the argument that will undoubtedly come up that criminals will
: always get guns. True, proffessional criminals will always get guns. But
: the majority of gun murders aren't by proffessional criminals. Rather
: they are committed in domestic disputes or situations like this where
: someone loses it.
Sources, methods and data again please.
: Clearly gun access is an issue here and restricting
: that access will save lives by not only limiting incidents like Port
: Arthur, Stratfield, Hoddle St etc but also by preventing incidents where
: someone takes to their family during the heat of a domestic dispute.
: Your statement is a dissgrace and is an attempt to trivialise the issue.
: It is people like you who help feed the gun lobby and the pressure they
: apply to politicians. Until this pressure is reduced and the political
: will exists to restrict access, particularly for the type of gun used at
: Port Arthur, these events will keep happening.
Sadly, these 'events' will keep happening regardless of legislation.
This is provable.
Mark.
David Bromage
Mark Addinall (addi...@powerup.com.au) wrote:
>: Or maybe being shot at may have enraged him even more. With more bullets
>: flying around, MORE people could have been hit. There is a difference
>: between sniping and a shootout.
>
>You have first hand experience I take it. I think if someone had the
>ability to unload a clip into his chest, a lot of families would be
>feeling a little better today.
This is assume that the other person wasn't equally psychotic. iF half a
dozen people at Pt Arthur had guns, do you think the pace would have been
any safer if they all started firing? I think not.
David Bromage
Mark Addinall (addi...@powerup.com.au) wrote:
>An extremely invalid argument. Why not ban cars?
Cars were invented as a means of transportation, not as a weapon designed
to kill. Axes were designed as tool for cutting wood, not as a weapon
designed to kill.
Come on, Mark. Think carefully........ Why were guns invented?
David Bromage
Mark Addinall (addi...@powerup.com.au) wrote:
>Brian (br...@coombs.anu.edu.au) wrote:
>
>: More guns in society is not the solution to violence in our society!
>
>Correct, but an armed society is a polite society.
Oh? So the freeway shootings in California are the sign of a polite society?
Remind me never to go driving in California.
>: More guns only make it easier for people to commit _more_
>: violence, not _less_ violence!
>
>Incorrect. High school logic would throw that argument down.
I fail to see how more guns is going to cause less violence. Even the
sanest person can snap at some time. If such a person, previously deemed
to be sane, owns a gun then there is every chance that he/she will use it.
Mark Addinall
rip...@zeta.org.au wrote:
: dme...@godzilla.zeta.org.au (Daniel Meijer) wrote:
: >Jeremy Kelaher (jer...@ot.com.au) wrote:
: >: Come on - trot out your stupid excuses
: >Hmmm. You know, people want tighter gun laws because they think this will
: >magically solve the problem of firearm-related killings. Wake up.
: >Narcotics are banned. However, if you want them, yo just have to have the
: >$ and the contacts. Narcotics kill more people than guns ever have in
: >australia. Imposing a law or a ban on something doesn't stop the problem.
: >The UK has much tighter gun laws than we do....and they still had Dunblane.
: It may not solve the problem but it sure as hell will discourage a lot
: of people from obtaining weapons if it is made difficult to do so.
: The less weapons around, hopefully = less incidents such as Port
: Arthur etc.
Jesus, I put up with a lot of crappy logic in this news group, but you are
making this experience an all time low. The gut was a fucking screwball.
If he didn't have a gun, his creative mind would have planned an
ingeneous method of offing a few dozen people I'm sure.
: >Tassy's open gun laws in the last few years have led to the importation
: >of many militay rifles....
: >[BTW thw weapon used in port arthur was an AR-15, a cut down M-16. That's
: >a rifle that is designed as fully automatic, with a semi-auto option
: >switch. Media shou;ld get their facts straight.]
: >...which may well have been taken across Bass Strait to the mainland,
: >regardless of the laws. Who knows how many semi- and fully-auto rifles
: >are around. The SKS used in the strathfield massacre was and is illegal
: >in NSW but it was still used.
: Tassies virtually non-existent gun laws don't you mean? I read
: somewhere that licenses were introduced only very recently and that it
: was a one-off payment of $30 for life (true?). If Tassie had tighter
: gun laws, it tends toward the conclusion (judging by what you say
: above) that less weapons would find their way to the mainland.
And to get a firearms license, you need to be of good character,
and free from mental problems. This bloke was neither.
: >Rego of firearms is good. No-one's disputing that. But you know, not all
: >gun owners even have licenses, as we found out in port arthur. So why
: >would people register their weapons? Its nice to say "Its the law to rego
: >your gun" but will people actually do it? I support firearm registration,
: >but I don't think its going to be as effective as the anti-gun lobby make
: >out. The semi and fully autos will remain obtainable on the black market,
: >and if you want to go and kill people, the weapons will always be available.
: I cannot think of one good reason why anyone should need to have a
: weapon at home.
How about for shooting crazy people that want to break in?
: OK if you are a collector, why not lodge the firing
: pin/bolt with the local police at time of registration. If you want
: it for protection this means you are likely to have the gun loaded and
: ready to go in which case you are exposed to the possibility of a
: child getting hold of the weapon
Only if you are a very bad, and stupid parent. Wiley, thoughts?
: - not to mention that you are putting
: yourself (and family?) in a very compromising position if you are not
: prepared to use it once you have produced it.
Three in the chest, one in the roof, in that order.
: If you are a hobby/sporting shooter, then shooting clubs should
: provide facilities for the storage of weapons.
They do.
: The only exceptions I can think of are those on rural properties who
: need a weapon for the purpose of protecting crops etc from animals
: such as wild boar.
Sigh, spoken by a man who has never left the city.
: >As for why have a gun at all, did you know that rifles can be collectors'
: >items? Say a WWII .303 lee enfield in perfect working condition. You'll
: >probably find that most gun owners are actually sensible, and keep the
: >bolt stored securely away from their rifles. And as for disabling the
: >weapon, by say, drilling out the barrel....well if you had a mint vintage
: >car, you wouldnt rip out the engine would you?
: See above.
: >I think a large proportio of the anti-gun lobby have little or no
: >experience with firearms, and so don't know their subject too well....and
: >it seems they havent considered whether or not their proposed legal
: >changes will actually work.....I support gun rego but, hey, do you REALLY
: >think it'll stop people committing murders?
: Not necessarliy. I believe that a large proportion of the anti-gun
: lobby have seen too many instances of what guns can do in the wrong
: hands. Most killings are not pre-meditated,
Source?
: meaning that a person
: with a gun (regardless of the reason they purchased it in the first
: place) is capable of using it against another person in the right
: circumstances - ie, under stress, relationship breakdowns, employment
: problems, financial problems etc etc. We have seen too many cases of
: husbands in financial strife who have taken their families with them
: in murder/suicide scenarios.
How many?
: The other problem with guns is that they are too impersonal - it is
: much easier to shoot someone than say stab or beat them to death,
: because it can be done from a distance with no physical contact
: involved.
: I'm afraid this anti-gun/pro-gun argument is one that will never be
: resolved as on both sides of the fence it is argued that personal
: liberties are being infringed upon. Tell me who you think would feel
: more hard done by - a person who has had their weapon taken away or
: someone who has had a family member or friend taken away? An
: emotional argument - yes, but an extremely valid one none-the-less.
An extremely invalid argument. Why not ban cars?
: regards, Tim...
: >--
: > ||||||||
: > | ^ ^ |
: > (| * * |)
: >--------oOOo---(__)---oOOo--------
: >Daniel Meijer - Sydney, Australia.
: > dme...@zeta.org.au
: > p303...@hardy.ocs.mq.edu.au
: >----------------------------------
Mark.
Chris Gillings
>a very good chance he would have been wasted after only shooting, say,
^^^^^^
This is a good example of why we should ban guns for the ordinary person:
their very availability breeds in otherwise sane people the same attitudes
that precipitate such slaughter.
I find the use of this term almost as offensive as the madman's actions.
(Though it is somewhat accurate: killing a person is very wasteful.)
--
Chris Gillings - Systems Administrator - Emphasys Corporation Pty Ltd
Level 2, 34-36 Chandos Street, St Leonards, N.S.W. 2065, Australia
email:chr...@emphasys.com.au Voice:61-2-9906-4611 Fax:61-2-9906-4747
"Quidvis recte factum quamvis humile praeclarum" - F.H.Royce:Mechanic
Mark Addinall
BENJAMIN PETERS (bp...@un.seqeb.gov.au) wrote:
: Merlin Zener (mer...@ion.com.au) wrote:
: : rip...@zeta.org.au wrote:
: : >
: : > [...big snip]
: : >
: : > weapon at home.
: : Well the most obvious is to protect yourself!!!
: God help us if we keep going down this path that is gradually
: turning our _safe_ country, into an everyone-for-themselves kind
: of country that you are touting.
: If you don't have a gun, you can't shoot anyone with it...
: If they don't have a gun, they can't shoot you with it either...
So, we get all the bad guys and the lunatics to hand in
their firearms. Yep, that'll work.
: All you rednecks ought to give it a rest and join us here in the
: 20th century (or at least move to the deep south of the USA where
: you belong).
20th century, posting from SEQEB, how bizarre. When are you dickheads
going to replace the transformer in the GAP.
: ...and isn't it typical of right-wing governments in this country...
: to plod along the reactive social path...oooh, dozens of innocent
: people have been slaughtered...better have an emergency summit about
: gun laws... Get real, fascists!!!
: Ben PETERS
: (Flame me if you dare)
Ho hum, you're lightweight, no need for flames.
Mark.
Brian
On 30 Apr 1996, Mark Addinall wrote:
> Brian (br...@coombs.anu.edu.au) wrote:
> : On Tue, 30 Apr 1996, Merlin Zener wrote:
>
> : > rip...@zeta.org.au wrote:
> : > >
> : > > [...big snip]
> : > >
> : > > I cannot think of one good reason why anyone should need to have a
> : > > weapon at home.
> : >
> : > Well the most obvious is to protect yourself!!!
>
> : If no one has a gun, then you won't need one to "defend yourself"
> : with one, now will you?
>
> So, Oh learned one. Just how do you propose disarming the planet Earth?
I'm so glad that you recognise my superior intelligence. I
don't. I propose to simply disarm one little corner of it.
>
> : More guns in society is not the solution to violence in our society!
>
> Correct, but an armed society is a polite society.
>
And it has a mcuh higher rate of accidental deaths (particularly
amongst the children of the gun owning population) it also has a much
higher rate of murders as people attempt to _make_ other people polite
towards them.
If your claim was true then America, which has the highest rate
of gun ownership per capita in the world would be extremely polite. It
isn't, therefore you comment is a furphy.
> : More guns only make it easier for people to commit _more_
> : violence, not _less_ violence!
>
> Incorrect. High school logic would throw that argument down.
>
Witnmess the stats that others have posted comparing the rates of
homicide in Seattle with Vancouver. In one gun control is laxer than the
other. The more strict gun control regime has a much lower rate of gun
related crime.
I have, several years ago, when I used to argue this sort of crap
with the real gun nuts in talk.politics.guns.usa, seen posted the stats
for Australia in the first quarter of this century when gun control laws
were introduced in most states (in response to the alarming increase in
gun related crime after the return of WWI veterans from OS). There was a
marked decline immediately after the introduction of gun control laws.
> : Just look at America where guns are so easily available.
>
> Where in America? Would you really like to discuss this issue
> sensibly, or would you prefer to just have a little angst
> attack and back away?
In a large number of Ameircan states (not all) gun control is
extremely lax compared with even the soft regime we currently have in
Australia. Look mate, I've done and gone through all the arguments on
this matter many times over the years in this forum and others. It all
boils down to the gun nuts refusing to see the facts presented to them
and preferring to hide behind their misguided beliefs in some sort of
god-given "right" to have a gun.
>
> Do you want to have a look at some worldwide homicide stats?
Several have been posted in this newgroup already. In all, those
states with the highest ownership of guns have the highest rate of
homicides. Perhaps you'd care to draw the correlation?
Guns are not the sole cause of homocides, there are many others,
including the economic outlook of the perpetrators. However, as long as
society refuses to address the problems of the have-nots versus those of
the haves, the only way to decrease the homocide rate is to introduce
stricter gun controls.
Ian Staples
dbro...@metz.une.edu.au (David Bromage) writes:
>sanest person can snap at some time. If such a person, previously deemed
>to be sane, owns a gun then there is every chance that he/she will use it.
This is the real problem. It's not necessarily "insanity" -- though I
guess it could be considered that technically, temporarily -- but rage,
fear, or other strong emotion that leads one to inflict injury on another.
The trouble with using a gun to do this is that guns tend to be *very*
unforgiving. The victim has more chance of surviving an amateur attack
with a knife or a blunt instrument.
Ian S.
--
Ian Staples E-mail : I.St...@dpi.qld.gov.au
c/- P.O. Box 1054 MAREEBA Phone : +61 (0)70 928 555 Home 924 847
Queensland Australia 4880 Fax : +61 (0)70 923 593 " " "
Mark Addinall
Chris Gillings (chr...@emphasys.com.au) wrote:
: >a very good chance he would have been wasted after only shooting, say,
: ^^^^^^
: This is a good example of why we should ban guns for the ordinary person:
: their very availability breeds in otherwise sane people the same attitudes
: that precipitate such slaughter.
Good, only extra-ordinary people get to keep guns.
I can now retire in good humour.
: I find the use of this term almost as offensive as the madman's actions.
: (Though it is somewhat accurate: killing a person is very wasteful.)
If you find a posting on USENET that uses the term 'wasted' about
as gross as the slaughter of innocents then I would suggest that
you take yourself to a good councillor. If you can find one still
open, that is.
: --
: Chris Gillings - Systems Administrator - Emphasys Corporation Pty Ltd
: Level 2, 34-36 Chandos Street, St Leonards, N.S.W. 2065, Australia
: email:chr...@emphasys.com.au Voice:61-2-9906-4611 Fax:61-2-9906-4747
: "Quidvis recte factum quamvis humile praeclarum" - F.H.Royce:Mechanic
Mark (unimpressed) Addinall.
Chris Gillings
In article <4m4egu$5...@grissom.powerup.com.au>,
Mark Addinall <addi...@mail.powerup.com.au> wrote:
>20th century, posting from SEQEB, how bizarre. When are you dickheads
>going to replace the transformer in the GAP.
Stick to the subject, Mark. This is neither the time nor place for
cheap off-topic shots. I expected better from you.
>: Ben PETERS
>: (Flame me if you dare)
>
>Ho hum, you're lightweight, no need for flames.
How very big of you. Are you going to be as condescending to me?
I was slowly developing the impression (from his participation in
aus.personals) that Mark was a 'mensch'. "Bang" goes that theory. ;-)
And before you accuse me of being unfamiliar with guns: I've fired
weapons ranging from a BB gun to military hardware such as 9mm
Browning automatics, SLRs and F1 SMGs. I'm a good shot and have
killed my share of bunny rabbits with the old bolt-action .22.
Nevertheless I find the sense of 'power' that surges in me while
holding a firearm somewhat disturbing. I choose not to own one
and have long since destroyed my licence. A friend of mine had a
six-shot repeating .22 when this debate last arose. I hounded
him until he handed it in to the police.
Mark Addinall
Kym Horsell (khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au) wrote:
: In article <4m24hd$l...@gidora.kralizec.net.au>,
: Daniel Meijer <dme...@godzilla.zeta.org.au> wrote:
: >Jeremy Kelaher (jer...@ot.com.au) wrote:
: >: Come on - trot out your stupid excuses
: >
: >Hmmm. You know, people want tighter gun laws because they think this will
: >magically solve the problem of firearm-related killings. Wake up.
: >Narcotics are banned. However, if you want them, yo just have to have the
: >$ and the contacts. Narcotics kill more people than guns ever have in
: >australia. Imposing a law or a ban on something doesn't stop the problem.
: >The UK has much tighter gun laws than we do....and they still had Dunblane.
: >
: I 2nd the "wake up" call:
: Here are some interesting stats -- including Dunblane --
: Deaths from "lone gunmen":
Nice non-emotive opening.
: Country Pop'n Deaths
: Britain 56 mn 70 TOTAL
: Australia 18 mn 520 pa
: USA 280 mn 40K pa
: (These numbers may have some "apples and oranges" content)
As per usual.
Firearm deaths registered in Australia in 1994 (most up to date
study, I have some preliminary figures for 1995-96) - Inter -
personal violence.
76
Source: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
So the 'lone gunman' numbers don't seem to add up to 520pa.
I don't agree with much of the things you espouse on the
net, but I thought you were above fiddling numbers to make
a point. Doesn't say much for Latrobe.
You can add:
Accidental 20
Undetermined 6
Homicide 76
Suicide 420
That last on is a horrid number is it not.
The same number for all deaths (as opposed to gun related deaths) are:
Accidental 1468
Undetermined 23
Homicide 114
Suicide 2258
This figure does not contain deaths related to improper medical
treatment. As it is very hard to prove, the n has been reduced
substantially.
That last one is a horrid number is it not.
No correlation has ever been shown regarding the ownership of
firearms in a civilian population and the number (or percentage of
population) of homicides or suicides.
Unfortunatly, preliminary numbers show that at least half of
homicides (including justifable) are commited by registered
shooters. Shall we say 40 for a population of 18 million and
a (approx.) population of one million adult shooters.
As an aside, it was just pointed out by her indoors, that the empirical
data of deaths we study, study only the n of deaths, not the n of
incedents. Sad as the situation in Tasmania is, it's a blip on the chart.
If you want to thrash out some numbers, I'd be pleased. As I have said,
I may not agree with you on many points, but if you wish to debate
civilian gun ownership in a rational manner, I would be pleased to do so.
: --
: R. Kym Horsell
: KHor...@EE.Latrobe.EDU.AU k...@CS.Binghamton.EDU
: http://WWW.EE.LaTrobe.EDU.AU/~khorsell http://CS.Binghamton.EDU/~kym
Mark.
ROD HIBBERD
-=> Quoting Merlin Zener to All <=-
>
> [...big snip]
>
> I cannot think of one good reason why anyone should need to have a
> weapon at home.
MZ> Well the most obvious is to protect yourself!!!
MZ> How about this: the reason that one surfie was able to kill so many
MZ> people was that no-one was able to stand up to him. Why? Because he
MZ> was the only one with the gun!
Who is it, even in a society of gun crazies, would normally encumber
themselves with a rifle during a trip to tourist attractions?
Given the statistics for australian gun ownership, there must have
been plenty of gun owners at Port Arthur at the time, but they had
sensibly left their rifles at home or at the gun club.
The 'protection' argument is entirely bogus.
And so, what if a whole lot of the visitors had produced pistols and
rifles and started a shoot-out without fire control, without
discipline, without training? The police would very reasonably have
arrested the lot of them and seen to it they were jailed. And anyone
injured (or worse) in the cross fire could and should sue for every
cent they can squeeze.
This event sure is luring the crazies out of the woodwork.
-Rod-
rod.h...@mcc.com.au vox-61-2-55-00-395 fax-61-2-56-00-356
--------------------------------------------------------------
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
Mark Addinall
David Bromage (dbro...@metz.une.edu.au) wrote:
: Mark Addinall (addi...@powerup.com.au) wrote:
: >: Or maybe being shot at may have enraged him even more. With more bullets
: >: flying around, MORE people could have been hit. There is a difference
: >: between sniping and a shootout.
: >
: >You have first hand experience I take it. I think if someone had the
: >ability to unload a clip into his chest, a lot of families would be
: >feeling a little better today.
: This is assume that the other person wasn't equally psychotic. iF half a
: dozen people at Pt Arthur had guns, do you think the pace would have been
: any safer if they all started firing? I think not.
I think so. I know, if I was at the site I would have shot the prick
dead. I think most of my UBANGI tribesmen would have as well.
: Cheers
: David
: -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
: David Bromage dbro...@metz.une.edu.au
: Department of Chemistry
: University of New England "On the Internet people who are normally
: Armidale, NSW 2351 under rocks are out there and in your
: Australia face" - Douglas Adams
Mark (woomera) Addinall.
Mark Addinall
: >
: >: More guns in society is not the solution to violence in our society!
: >
: >Correct, but an armed society is a polite society.
: Oh? So the freeway shootings in California are the sign of a polite society?
: Remind me never to go driving in California.
California has some of the tightest gun=control laws in the US. Nearly
as bad as DC. Would you care to look at the facts for a change?
: >: More guns only make it easier for people to commit _more_
: >: violence, not _less_ violence!
: >
: >Incorrect. High school logic would throw that argument down.
: I fail to see how more guns is going to cause less violence. Even the
: sanest person can snap at some time. If such a person, previously deemed
: to be sane, owns a gun then there is every chance that he/she will use it.
Your slipping from average dumb to clueless. More guns/Less guns is not
the issue when considering homicides or suicides in a general population.
I know you would like everyone to beleive so, but it isn't true.
: Cheers
: David
: -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
: David Bromage dbro...@metz.une.edu.au
: Department of Chemistry
: University of New England "On the Internet people who are normally
: Armidale, NSW 2351 under rocks are out there and in your
: Australia face" - Douglas Adams
Mark.
Mark Addinall
: Cars were invented as a means of transportation, not as a weapon designed
: to kill.
They do kill rather effectively, dontcha think?
Is this an added (and unexpected) benifit?
: Axes were designed as tool for cutting wood, not as a weapon
: designed to kill.
Adzes, perhaps. I think axes, in the current form, were designed
to chop various bits of other peoples bodies.
: Come on, Mark. Think carefully........ Why were guns invented?
Errrrmmmmmm, hunting game and claiming land.
Do I win a prize?
Mark Addinall
Brian (br...@coombs.anu.edu.au) wrote:
: On 30 Apr 1996, Mark Addinall wrote:
: > Brian (br...@coombs.anu.edu.au) wrote:
: > : On Tue, 30 Apr 1996, Merlin Zener wrote:
: >
: > : > rip...@zeta.org.au wrote:
: > : > >
: > : > > [...big snip]
: > : > >
: > : > > I cannot think of one good reason why anyone should need to have a
: > : > > weapon at home.
: > : >
: > : > Well the most obvious is to protect yourself!!!
: >
: > : If no one has a gun, then you won't need one to "defend yourself"
: > : with one, now will you?
: >
: > So, Oh learned one. Just how do you propose disarming the planet Earth?
: I'm so glad that you recognise my superior intelligence. I
: don't. I propose to simply disarm one little corner of it.
So it's just your place then? Good.
: >
: > : More guns in society is not the solution to violence in our society!
: >
: > Correct, but an armed society is a polite society.
: >
: And it has a mcuh higher rate of accidental deaths (particularly
: amongst the children of the gun owning population) it also has a much
: higher rate of murders as people attempt to _make_ other people polite
: towards them.
Please post your stats.
: If your claim was true then America, which has the highest rate
: of gun ownership per capita in the world would be extremely polite. It
: isn't, therefore you comment is a furphy.
Incorrect and (possibly) correct. Have you ahd a look at
the figures on USA homicides, by state and demographic
breakdown?
: > : More guns only make it easier for people to commit _more_
: > : violence, not _less_ violence!
: >
: > Incorrect. High school logic would throw that argument down.
: >
: Witnmess the stats that others have posted comparing the rates of
: homicide in Seattle with Vancouver. In one gun control is laxer than the
: other. The more strict gun control regime has a much lower rate of gun
: related crime.
False. As far as I am aware, I am the only person to publish some numbers
with a reliable reference. Post your proofs. I will need method and
results. Failing that I'll just regard you as another hand-waving
idiot.
: I have, several years ago, when I used to argue this sort of crap
: with the real gun nuts in talk.politics.guns.usa, seen posted the stats
: for Australia in the first quarter of this century when gun control laws
: were introduced in most states (in response to the alarming increase in
: gun related crime after the return of WWI veterans from OS). There was a
: marked decline immediately after the introduction of gun control laws.
That's talk.politics.guns (no USA). The 'marked decline' did not,
and has not ever happened. Check your numbers.
: > : Just look at America where guns are so easily available.
: >
: > Where in America? Would you really like to discuss this issue
: > sensibly, or would you prefer to just have a little angst
: > attack and back away?
: In a large number of Ameircan states (not all) gun control is
: extremely lax compared with even the soft regime we currently have in
: Australia. Look mate, I've done and gone through all the arguments on
: this matter many times over the years in this forum and others. It all
: boils down to the gun nuts refusing to see the facts presented to them
: and preferring to hide behind their misguided beliefs in some sort of
: god-given "right" to have a gun.
: >
: > Do you want to have a look at some worldwide homicide stats?
: Several have been posted in this newgroup already. In all, those
: states with the highest ownership of guns have the highest rate of
: homicides. Perhaps you'd care to draw the correlation?
Perhaps you would like to walk us all through your analysis of the
correlation? While you are astounding me with your intellect, perhaps
you could explain the ratios of violent crime involving firearms
between, say, Israel and Japan?
: Guns are not the sole cause of homocides, there are many others,
: including the economic outlook of the perpetrators. However, as long as
: society refuses to address the problems of the have-nots versus those of
: the haves, the only way to decrease the homocide rate is to introduce
: stricter gun controls.
Or shoot all of the poor people.
: --Brian Ross--------------------------------------------------------------------
: "There can be no more melancholy, nor in the last result, no more degrading
: spectacle on earth than the spectacle of oppression, or of wrong in whatever
: form, inflicted by the deliberate act of a nation upon another nation..Gladstone
Mark.
Mark Addinall
Ian Staples (sta...@planet.mh.dpi.qld.gov.au) wrote:
: dbro...@metz.une.edu.au (David Bromage) writes:
: >sanest person can snap at some time. If such a person, previously deemed
: >to be sane, owns a gun then there is every chance that he/she will use it.
: This is the real problem. It's not necessarily "insanity" -- though I
: guess it could be considered that technically, temporarily -- but rage,
: fear, or other strong emotion that leads one to inflict injury on another.
: The trouble with using a gun to do this is that guns tend to be *very*
: unforgiving. The victim has more chance of surviving an amateur attack
: with a knife or a blunt instrument.
This is of course a fact you can provide sources for.
Canadians are a bit anal at collecting stats. Lets have a look at
'Firearms and Violent Crime in Canada - 1988/1991'
Non-Firearm 94.9%
Handgun 2.3%
Rifle/Shotgun 2.8%
Note: "Non-Firearm" includes knives, blunt instruments and other
physical force.
Source: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Weapons and Violent
Crime, Aug 1991, p. 2, pp. 10-13.
: Ian S.
: --
: Ian Staples E-mail : I.St...@dpi.qld.gov.au
: c/- P.O. Box 1054 MAREEBA Phone : +61 (0)70 928 555 Home 924 847
: Queensland Australia 4880 Fax : +61 (0)70 923 593 " " "
Next please.
Mark.
Glenn Reither
>Ian Staples (sta...@planet.mh.dpi.qld.gov.au) wrote:
>: dbro...@metz.une.edu.au (David Bromage) writes:
>: The victim has more chance of surviving an amateur attack
>: with a knife or a blunt instrument.
>This is of course a fact you can provide sources for.
>Canadians are a bit anal at collecting stats. Lets have a look at
>'Firearms and Violent Crime in Canada - 1988/1991'
>Non-Firearm 94.9%
>Handgun 2.3%
>Rifle/Shotgun 2.8%
>Note: "Non-Firearm" includes knives, blunt instruments and other
>physical force.
>Source: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Weapons and Violent
>Crime, Aug 1991, p. 2, pp. 10-13.
Hardly suprising when you think about it.
2 questions: Anyone recently killed 30+ people with a blunt instrument?
Are semi-automatic weapons good for chopping the carrots or changing a washer?
If they are I can understand why someone might need one.
--
Glenn Reither <gl...@loose.apana.org.au>
Michael Lucke
Merlin is one of the only people who makes some sense! Spot on, Merlin!
Mind you, you can't convince these "new age peace people" and politicaly
correct lunatics, unfortunately, because they don't like you to confuse
them with facts because they already made up their mind....!
Read this, you might learn something :
> rip...@zeta.org.au wrote:
> >
> > [...big snip]
> >
> > I cannot think of one good reason why anyone should need to have a
> > weapon at home.
>
> Well the most obvious is to protect yourself!!!
>
> How about this: the reason that one surfie was able to kill so many
> people was that no-one was able to stand up to him. Why? Because he
> was the only one with the gun!
> If there had been *anyone* else there when he started shooting there's
> a very good chance he would have been wasted after only shooting, say,
> 2 or 3 people. Think of it: 30 or so families spared the trauma of
> having to bury their loved ones...
>
> --
> Merlin Zener phone (+61) (0)18 779 594
> Musician, Technician fax (+61) (0)7 5578 5011
> Gold Coast, Australia email mer...@ion.com.au
> http://www.ion.com.au/~merlin
>
> "research shows that no-one ever went blind from
> looking on the bright side of life"
>
Toxic
addi...@powerup.com.au (Mark Addinall) wrote:
>California has some of the tightest gun=control laws in the US. Nearly
>as bad as DC. Would you care to look at the facts for a change?
Yeah I hear it takes an hour and you can't get them over them phone
any more!
>: >: More guns only make it easier for people to commit _more_
>: >: violence, not _less_ violence!
>Your slipping from average dumb to clueless. More guns/Less guns is not
>the issue when considering homicides or suicides in a general population.
>I know you would like everyone to beleive so, but it isn't true.
Source?
More guns = More Violent Crime. It is a fact.
Gun owners are more likely to shoot themselves or a friend than an
unknown intruder . Check the facts for yourself or watch the news,
most people are shot be someone they know.
It is hard to shoot someone without a gun. Even you can figure that
one out.
>: Cheers
>: David
>: -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>: David Bromage dbro...@metz.une.edu.au
>: Department of Chemistry
>: University of New England "On the Internet people who are normally
>: Armidale, NSW 2351 under rocks are out there and in your
>: Australia face" - Douglas Adams
>Mark.
Tox
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Two men walk into a bar one after the other, you would have thought
that the second guy would have been smarter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This item was brought to you by the letters E and B and the number 7
Phil Carey
Brian <br...@coombs.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>
> And it has a mcuh higher rate of accidental deaths (particularly
>amongst the children of the gun owning population) it also has a much
>higher rate of murders as people attempt to _make_ other people polite
>towards them.
>
People keep saying this...... source?
> If your claim was true then America, which has the highest rate
>of gun ownership per capita in the world would be extremely polite. It
>isn't, therefore you comment is a furphy.
^^^^^
I thought a furphy was a rumour??
>>
>> Do you want to have a look at some worldwide homicide stats?
>
> Several have been posted in this newgroup already. In all, those
>states with the highest ownership of guns have the highest rate of
>homicides. Perhaps you'd care to draw the correlation?
Per capita? I didn't see these stats ...was Sweden included?
Cheers
--
Phil Carey - fil...@melbpc.org.au
Member, Melbourne PC User Group.
"What is it that it is?" - Hugo.
Phil Carey
eev...@cc.curtin.edu.au (Toxic) wrote:
>More guns = More Violent Crime. It is a fact.
No it's not.
>
>Gun owners are more likely to shoot themselves or a friend than an
>unknown intruder . Check the facts for yourself or watch the news,
>most people are shot be someone they know.
If you are after facts _DON'T_ watch the news!
David Bromage
Mark Addinall (addi...@powerup.com.au) wrote:
>David Bromage (dbro...@metz.une.edu.au) wrote:
>: Come on, Mark. Think carefully........ Why were guns invented?
>
>Errrrmmmmmm, hunting game and claiming land.
The oldest muzzle loader from the 16th century was hardly accurate enough
to hit moving game.
As to claiming land, this infers that you are taking it from somebody, or
going to defend it from somebody else. What are you going to do if the
owner doesn't want to give it up? You just scored an own goal there, Mark.
David Bromage
Qcumber (o...@eskimo.com) wrote:
>Mullen, expert on the link between mental illness and violence says
>"random mass killings are retricted to the Western World. The random
>killer is a product of the late 20th century because without automatic and
>semi-automatic weapons he could not wreak so much havoc in so short a
>time. It is possible that the scarcity of these weapons in Asia has
>eliminated this brand of horror,
Beijing excepted.
David Bromage
>: >
>: >Correct, but an armed society is a polite society.
>
>: Remind me never to go driving in California.
>
>as bad as DC. Would you care to look at the facts for a change?
That doesn't stop motorists shooting at each other on the freeways.
Gary Woodman
On Tue, 30 Apr 1996, Merlin Zener wrote:
> rip...@zeta.org.au wrote:
> >
> > [...big snip]
> >
> > I cannot think of one good reason why anyone should need to have a
> > weapon at home.
>
> Well the most obvious is to protect yourself!!!
>
> How about this: the reason that one surfie was able to kill so many
> people was that no-one was able to stand up to him. Why? Because he
> was the only one with the gun!
Yeah, would have been a great help if the families on a picnic at
Pt. Arthur or the kiddies in Scotland all had '45s. You watch too much TV.
I take great exception to the idea that I'm forced to carry a gun, and
learn how to use it, to protect myself from maniacs with highly developed
killing machines that they obtained without any questions being asked.
That's not the society I want to live in, a feeling shared I imagine by
the vast majority of Australians.
Gary
--
In sympathy for innocent victims everywhere -
Get Rid Of The Guns
Gary Woodman
On 30 Apr 1996, Mark Addinall wrote:
> making this experience an all time low. The gut was a fucking screwball.
> If he didn't have a gun, his creative mind would have planned an
> ingeneous method of offing a few dozen people I'm sure.
Since you know him so well, why didn't you warn anyone?
> : I cannot think of one good reason why anyone should need to have a
> : weapon at home.
>
> How about for shooting crazy people that want to break in?
You know quite well that this is far less common than crazies wandering
the streets, arbitrarily murdering people. If you are this paranoid, I
suggest you seek professional help.
> : I'm afraid this anti-gun/pro-gun argument is one that will never be
> : resolved as on both sides of the fence it is argued that personal
> : liberties are being infringed upon. Tell me who you think would feel
> : more hard done by - a person who has had their weapon taken away or
> : someone who has had a family member or friend taken away? An
> : emotional argument - yes, but an extremely valid one none-the-less.
>
> An extremely invalid argument. Why not ban cars?
Because they are not designed as, nor used as, weapons of mass murder.
Gary Woodman
On 30 Apr 1996, Mark Addinall wrote:
> Brian (br...@coombs.anu.edu.au) wrote:
> : On Tue, 30 Apr 1996, Merlin Zener wrote:
>
> : > rip...@zeta.org.au wrote:
> : > >
> : > > [...big snip]
> : > >
> : > > I cannot think of one good reason why anyone should need to have a
> : > > weapon at home.
> : >
> : > Well the most obvious is to protect yourself!!!
>
> : If no one has a gun, then you won't need one to "defend yourself"
> : with one, now will you?
>
> So, Oh learned one. Just how do you propose disarming the planet Earth?
Mark, there's no need to divert the discussion away from Australian gun
control. In fact, it's no problem - just make it anti-social to own a gun,
just like it's become anti-social to drive drunk, to cheat on your tax, to
rape your date. People will hand in their guns because they don't want
them.
> : More guns in society is not the solution to violence in our society!
>
> Correct, but an armed society is a polite society.
You couldn't be more arse-about; a polite society doesn't need arms.
> Do you want to have a look at some worldwide homicide stats?
No. However, feel free to describe how such stats might be relevant to
Australian gun control.
Gary Woodman
On 30 Apr 1996, Gareth Bull wrote:
> I think this issue comes down to an all too familiar argument of: When is it
> appropriate to curtail the freedoms of one section of the community in order
> to preserve the freedoms of another section of the community?
Before the next massacre. Preferably *now*.
In this context, we're talking about the freedom to enjoy playing with
extremely dangerous toys, versus the freedom to enjoy an afternoon in the
park with one's family.
> Unfortunately
> there are people who would rather hang onto certain guns illegally in the
> face of having to give them up (eg: miltary style automatic guns).
I'm afraid you're right. Are these the criminals and latent psychos from
whom we need protection?
Gary Woodman
On Tue, 30 Apr 1996, Ian Staples wrote:
> dbro...@metz.une.edu.au (David Bromage) writes:
>
> >sanest person can snap at some time. If such a person, previously deemed
> >to be sane, owns a gun then there is every chance that he/she will use it.
>
> This is the real problem. It's not necessarily "insanity" -- though I
> guess it could be considered that technically, temporarily -- but rage,
> fear, or other strong emotion that leads one to inflict injury on another.
> The trouble with using a gun to do this is that guns tend to be *very*
> unforgiving.
That's why the only solution is to get rid of the guns.
Jason Royals
rip...@zeta.org.au wrote:
>
> dme...@godzilla.zeta.org.au (Daniel Meijer) wrote:
>
> >Jeremy Kelaher (jer...@ot.com.au) wrote:
> >: Come on - trot out your stupid excuses
>
> >Hmmm. You know, people want tighter gun laws because they think this will
> >magically solve the problem of firearm-related killings. Wake up.
> >Narcotics are banned. However, if you want them, yo just have to have the
> >$ and the contacts. Narcotics kill more people than guns ever have in
> >australia. Imposing a law or a ban on something doesn't stop the problem.
> >The UK has much tighter gun laws than we do....and they still had Dunblane.
>
> of people from obtaining weapons if it is made difficult to do so.
> The less weapons around, hopefully = less incidents such as Port
> Arthur etc.
>
> >Tassy's open gun laws in the last few years have led to the importation
> >of many militay rifles....
>
> >[BTW thw weapon used in port arthur was an AR-15, a cut down M-16. That's
> >a rifle that is designed as fully automatic, with a semi-auto option
> >switch. Media shou;ld get their facts straight.]
>
> >...which may well have been taken across Bass Strait to the mainland,
> >regardless of the laws. Who knows how many semi- and fully-auto rifles
> >are around. The SKS used in the strathfield massacre was and is illegal
> >in NSW but it was still used.
>
> Tassies virtually non-existent gun laws don't you mean? I read
> somewhere that licenses were introduced only very recently and that it
> was a one-off payment of $30 for life (true?). If Tassie had tighter
> gun laws, it tends toward the conclusion (judging by what you say
> above) that less weapons would find their way to the mainland.
>
> >Rego of firearms is good. No-one's disputing that. But you know, not all
> >gun owners even have licenses, as we found out in port arthur. So why
> >would people register their weapons? Its nice to say "Its the law to rego
> >your gun" but will people actually do it? I support firearm registration,
> >but I don't think its going to be as effective as the anti-gun lobby make
> >out. The semi and fully autos will remain obtainable on the black market,
> >and if you want to go and kill people, the weapons will always be available.
>
> I cannot think of one good reason why anyone should need to have a
> pin/bolt with the local police at time of registration. If you want
> it for protection this means you are likely to have the gun loaded and
> ready to go in which case you are exposed to the possibility of a
> child getting hold of the weapon - not to mention that you are putting
> yourself (and family?) in a very compromising position if you are not
> prepared to use it once you have produced it.
>
> If you are a hobby/sporting shooter, then shooting clubs should
> provide facilities for the storage of weapons.
>
> The only exceptions I can think of are those on rural properties who
> need a weapon for the purpose of protecting crops etc from animals
> such as wild boar.
>
> >As for why have a gun at all, did you know that rifles can be collectors'
> >items? Say a WWII .303 lee enfield in perfect working condition. You'll
> >probably find that most gun owners are actually sensible, and keep the
> >bolt stored securely away from their rifles. And as for disabling the
> >weapon, by say, drilling out the barrel....well if you had a mint vintage
> >car, you wouldnt rip out the engine would you?
>
> See above.
>
> >I think a large proportio of the anti-gun lobby have little or no
> >experience with firearms, and so don't know their subject too well....and
> >it seems they havent considered whether or not their proposed legal
> >changes will actually work.....I support gun rego but, hey, do you REALLY
> >think it'll stop people committing murders?
>
> Not necessarliy. I believe that a large proportion of the anti-gun
> lobby have seen too many instances of what guns can do in the wrong
> hands. Most killings are not pre-meditated, meaning that a person
> with a gun (regardless of the reason they purchased it in the first
> place) is capable of using it against another person in the right
> circumstances - ie, under stress, relationship breakdowns, employment
> problems, financial problems etc etc. We have seen too many cases of
> husbands in financial strife who have taken their families with them
> in murder/suicide scenarios.
>
> The other problem with guns is that they are too impersonal - it is
> much easier to shoot someone than say stab or beat them to death,
> because it can be done from a distance with no physical contact
> involved.
>
> I'm afraid this anti-gun/pro-gun argument is one that will never be
> resolved as on both sides of the fence it is argued that personal
> liberties are being infringed upon. Tell me who you think would feel
> more hard done by - a person who has had their weapon taken away or
> someone who has had a family member or friend taken away? An
> emotional argument - yes, but an extremely valid one none-the-less.
>
>
> >--
> > ||||||||
> > | ^ ^ |
> > (| * * |)
> >--------oOOo---(__)---oOOo--------
> >Daniel Meijer - Sydney, Australia.
> > dme...@zeta.org.au
> > p303...@hardy.ocs.mq.edu.au
> >----------------------------------
Well, let me think...
If I was a psyco criminal bent on a massacre, I dont think I'd really bother
too much about licensing and registering! Whats the point of making the gun
laws tighter (as if they arne't tight enough already) if law breakers dont
give a damn anyway!
As a member of the SSAA, I must emphasise that making gun laws tighter across
Australia will never stop this type of thing from happening again!
Banning guns completely will make no difference at all. If Joe Bloe wants a
AK-47 full auto, he'd take a 'lil old trip to Bangkok and bring in a shipload
on our northern shores! Hey presto, 100 black market, illeagal guns.
So, we have a few options...
- Fortify our coastline, ban all guns and rename our country to Utopia.
- Ban all guns completely. What a great idea! Lets give all crims access to
black market guns and law abiding citizens have to suffer. Say goodbye to
our Sunday target shooting, and also our 2000 olympic shooting team. (yes,
some of us actually enjoy shooting paper targets)
- Keep all guns in a central armoury. It will cost millions if done properly
and will also provide criminals to a nice, big cache of weapons to steal for
more black market guns.
- An expansion of the above, do people honestly believe that all of the
illeagal guns out there already will be put into the police's armoury. I
don't think so, Tim!
- If the law makers keep making laws tighter, more and more guns will become
illeagal because the system is too complex.
In SA, it is very difficult to obtain a licence, particularly for handguns.
Will making the law tighter make it harder for crims to get them? We already
have strict storage laws. Will crims abide by these? I doubt it.
In Japan, guns are almost impossible to get, so there is a huge black market.
Banning guns does not stop crime but encourages it.
Punish the criminals, not the thousands of law abiding firearms owners.
Normal people should not have to be labelled "potential murderers" just
because of our sport of choice.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Never was so much owed |Why not visit my web site?
by so many to so few.. |
Winston Churchill | http://dove.mtx.net.au/~jroyals
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bilby
In article <N.050196....@slnew2p26.ozemail.com.au>, ba...@ozemail.com.au (Michael Lucke) says:
>
>Merlin is one of the only people who makes some sense! Spot on, Merlin!
>Mind you, you can't convince these "new age peace people" and politicaly
>correct lunatics, unfortunately, because they don't like you to confuse
>them with facts because they already made up their mind....!
>
>> How about this: the reason that one surfie was able to kill so many
>> people was that no-one was able to stand up to him. Why? Because he
>> was the only one with the gun!
>> If there had been *anyone* else there when he started shooting there's
>> a very good chance he would have been wasted after only shooting, say,
>> 2 or 3 people. Think of it: 30 or so families spared the trauma of
>> having to bury their loved ones...
Yep, and if his friend in the guest house didn't have a huge collection
of guns, no-one would have been killed! I guess if he knew there would
have been guns in the coffee-house he wouldn't have needed to stop at
the bed and breakfast first. Why do people need guns? (Apart from the
fact they feel like nice big cocks in their hands.)
Qcumber
In article <4m4bgb$5...@grissom.powerup.com.au>,
addi...@mail.powerup.com.au wrote:
> : It may not solve the problem but it sure as hell will discourage a lot
> : of people from obtaining weapons if it is made difficult to do so.
> : The less weapons around, hopefully = less incidents such as Port
> : Arthur etc.
>
> Jesus, I put up with a lot of crappy logic in this news group, but you are
> making this experience an all time low. The gut was a fucking screwball.
> If he didn't have a gun, his creative mind would have planned an
> ingeneous method of offing a few dozen people I'm sure.
Mullen, expert on the link between mental illness and violence says
"random mass killings are retricted to the Western World. The random
killer is a product of the late 20th century because without automatic and
semi-automatic weapons he could not wreak so much havoc in so short a
time. It is possible that the scarcity of these weapons in Asia has
eliminated this brand of horror, but Mullen says that a tamer version was
once a part of life in the Malaysian archipelago. Decades ago, the
occasional young Malaysian man ran amok - careering through the streets,
hacking at bystanders with a machete - until set upon and killed by the
crowd"
Source: The Australian, Tuesday April 30 1996 p11.
I have never heard or seen anyone ingenious enough to off a few dozen
people in one go in the past 3 decades. Perhaps Malaysians are just not
bright enough.
> : I cannot think of one good reason why anyone should need to have a
> : weapon at home.
>
> How about for shooting crazy people that want to break in?
Gosh, a baseball bat will do! Since firearms are so scarce in Singapore,
you can almost be assured that whoever is trying to break in doesn't have
one as well.
> Sigh, spoken by a man who has never left the city.
Sigh, spoken by a man who hasn't seen the world.
Adrian Morrisson
> > I cannot think of one good reason why anyone should need to have a
> > weapon at home.
>
> Well the most obvious is to protect yourself!!!
> If there had been *anyone* else there when he started shooting there's
> a very good chance he would have been wasted after only shooting, say,
> 2 or 3 people. Think of it: 30 or so families spared the trauma of
> having to bury their loved ones...
>
Yeah Right. Most people I know would go visit a Tourist site with a gun
for safety, just in case a weirdo shows up. NOT
Adrian
Brian
On 30 Apr 1996, Mark Addinall wrote:
> David Bromage (dbro...@metz.une.edu.au) wrote:
> : Mark Addinall (addi...@powerup.com.au) wrote:
> : >Brian (br...@coombs.anu.edu.au) wrote:
> : >
> : >: More guns in society is not the solution to violence in our society!
> : >
> : >Correct, but an armed society is a polite society.
>
> : Oh? So the freeway shootings in California are the sign of a polite society?
> : Remind me never to go driving in California.
>
> California has some of the tightest gun=control laws in the US. Nearly
> as bad as DC. Would you care to look at the facts for a change?
Laws and the will to enforce them are two different things.
Thankfully here we have had governments which have been willing to
enforce laws cdconcerning public safety. In the US because of the gun
owningh culture and the police mentality the result is that such laws are
by and large ignored and forgotten about by hte policeman on the beat.
Only for one month long periuod have the gun laws in Washington DC been
enforced. Interestingly, during that month, the rate of gun related
homocide drpped. I'll let you draw your own conclusion from that.
You're obviously the one whom needs to look at facts. California
is not only place in the US where guns have been used on freeway, it just
happens more often there. It is obvious that US society is not polite,
despite the massive number of guns there.
>
> : >: More guns only make it easier for people to commit _more_
> : >: violence, not _less_ violence!
> : >
> : >Incorrect. High school logic would throw that argument down.
>
> : I fail to see how more guns is going to cause less violence. Even the
> : sanest person can snap at some time. If such a person, previously deemed
> : to be sane, owns a gun then there is every chance that he/she will use it.
>
> Your slipping from average dumb to clueless. More guns/Less guns is not
> the issue when considering homicides or suicides in a general population.
Care to explain the fact that with the highest ownership of guns
per capita the US also has the highest rate of gun-related violence? The
ready availablity of firearms has ensured that US society is one of the
most violent on Earth.
--Brian Ross--------------------------------------------------------------------
"There can be no more melancholy, nor in the last result, no more degrading
spectacle on earth than the spectacle of oppression, or of wrong in whatever
form, inflicted by the deliberate act of a nation upon another nation..Gladstone
ps. Please stop quoting back people's signatures to them. It simply
wastes bandwidth.
David Bromage
Brian (br...@coombs.anu.edu.au) wrote:
> Care to explain the fact that with the highest ownership of guns
>per capita the US also has the highest rate of gun-related violence? The
>ready availablity of firearms has ensured that US society is one of the
>most violent on Earth.
I couldn't have put it better. Where does the US Army (and even the
Australian army on occasions) send their medics to gain experience in
treating gunshot wounds? New York City.
Brian
On 30 Apr 1996, Mark Addinall wrote:
> Brian (br...@coombs.anu.edu.au) wrote:
> : On 30 Apr 1996, Mark Addinall wrote:
> : > So, Oh learned one. Just how do you propose disarming the planet Earth?
> : I'm so glad that you recognise my superior intelligence. I
> : don't. I propose to simply disarm one little corner of it.
>
> So it's just your place then? Good.
Yes, its called "Australia".
> : >
> : > : More guns in society is not the solution to violence in our society!
> : >
> : > Correct, but an armed society is a polite society.
> : >
>
> : And it has a mcuh higher rate of accidental deaths (particularly
> : amongst the children of the gun owning population) it also has a much
> : higher rate of murders as people attempt to _make_ other people polite
> : towards them.
>
> Please post your stats.
>
I've been through all this over 6 years ago in
talk.politics.guns.usa. I no longer have them, having had several
different jobs since then and having moved states. You can choose to
either believe me or not. The choice is yours. I suspect though I know
which it will be.
> : If your claim was true then America, which has the highest rate
> : of gun ownership per capita in the world would be extremely polite. It
> : isn't, therefore you comment is a furphy.
>
> Incorrect and (possibly) correct. Have you ahd a look at
> the figures on USA homicides, by state and demographic
> breakdown?
That has absolutely *_NOTHING_* to do with the point I was
making! Please stick to the argument. If guns make a politer society,
why then is American society so impolite? Impolite to the point of
killing one another with their guns?
> > : > : More guns only make it easier for people to commit _more_ > : > : violence, not _less_ violence!
> : >
> : > Incorrect. High school logic would throw that argument down.
> : >
> : Witnmess the stats that others have posted comparing the rates of
> : homicide in Seattle with Vancouver. In one gun control is laxer than the
> : other. The more strict gun control regime has a much lower rate of gun
> : related crime.
>
> False. As far as I am aware, I am the only person to publish some numbers
> with a reliable reference. Post your proofs. I will need method and
> results. Failing that I'll just regard you as another hand-waving
> idiot.
Several others have posted "numbers". I suggest you read the
rest of the newsgroup, before putting your foot in your mouth.
> : I have, several years ago, when I used to argue this sort of crap
> : with the real gun nuts in talk.politics.guns.usa, seen posted the stats
> : for Australia in the first quarter of this century when gun control laws
> : were introduced in most states (in response to the alarming increase in
> : gun related crime after the return of WWI veterans from OS). There was a
> : marked decline immediately after the introduction of gun control laws.
>
> That's talk.politics.guns (no USA).
It should be, considering its degreee of relevance to the rest of
the world (for some strange reason its very hard to convince American gun
nuts that the US constitution is not releveant to the rest of the world).
> The 'marked decline' did not,
> and has not ever happened. Check your numbers.
>
For a person whom has (a) never seen the stats of which I am
spoeaking (by your own admission) and (b) seems to have some problems
with stats of all kinds, you refutation of them is rather remarkable,
don't you think?
> : > Do you want to have a look at some worldwide homicide stats?
>
> : Several have been posted in this newgroup already. In all, those
> : states with the highest ownership of guns have the highest rate of
> : homicides. Perhaps you'd care to draw the correlation?
>
> Perhaps you would like to walk us all through your analysis of the
> correlation? While you are astounding me with your intellect, perhaps
> you could explain the ratios of violent crime involving firearms
> between, say, Israel and Japan?
No, why don't you tell us whats wrong with me drawing a
correlation between gun ownership and violence within a society? I'm
sure, oh, superior and smug one, that you can demostrate your superiority
to all of us by showing your superior statistical knowledge.
While I am sure that you will put down the reason why people in
these countries resort to violence is becasue of factoers other than the
presence of guns, what you will fail to take into account is that the
violence that is committed is greatly facilitated by the presence of guns.
> : Guns are not the sole cause of homocides, there are many others,
> : including the economic outlook of the perpetrators. However, as long as
> : society refuses to address the problems of the have-nots versus those of
> : the haves, the only way to decrease the homocide rate is to introduce
> : stricter gun controls.
>
> Or shoot all of the poor people.
I will treat that suggestion with the contempt that it deserves.
Kym Horsell
In article <4m512a$a...@grissom.powerup.com.au>,
Mark Addinall <addi...@mail.powerup.com.au> wrote:
]Ian Staples (sta...@planet.mh.dpi.qld.gov.au) wrote:
]: dbro...@metz.une.edu.au (David Bromage) writes:
]: >to be sane, owns a gun then there is every chance that he/she will use it.
]: This is the real problem. It's not necessarily "insanity" -- though I
]: guess it could be considered that technically, temporarily -- but rage,
]: fear, or other strong emotion that leads one to inflict injury on another.
]: The trouble with using a gun to do this is that guns tend to be *very*
]: unforgiving. The victim has more chance of surviving an amateur attack
---------------------
]: with a knife or a blunt instrument.
]
]This is of course a fact you can provide sources for.
Then why didn't you?
]Canadians are a bit anal at collecting stats. Lets have a look at
]'Firearms and Violent Crime in Canada - 1988/1991'
]
]Non-Firearm 94.9%
]Handgun 2.3%
]Rifle/Shotgun 2.8%
]
]Note: "Non-Firearm" includes knives, blunt instruments and other
]physical force.
]
]Source: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Weapons and Violent
]Crime, Aug 1991, p. 2, pp. 10-13.
What does this prove?
Let's make a PREDICTION. In line with what Ian was saying, I will say that
because there are SO FEW guns used in homicides in Canada there will be
FEWER overall homicdes -- because MORE victims live to become victims of
SERIOUS ASSAULT (a number you fail to list because you're probably trying
to hide something, if not your ignorance).
Let's CHECK the prediction:
Setting (e.g.) the US and Canada side-by-side we find:
homicides pa homicides per 100K (5 y avg at 1990)
US 24.2K 9.6
Canada c520 2.0 (a little less than Aus)
(source: Coppell, Australia in Facts and Figures, 1994)
It would seem that the PREDICTION is obtained, in line with what Ian was
saying.
--
R. Kym Horsell
KHor...@EE.Latrobe.EDU.AU k...@CS.Binghamton.EDU
http://WWW.EE.LaTrobe.EDU.AU/~khorsell http://CS.Binghamton.EDU/~kym
Kym Horsell
In article <4m4cvk$7...@grivel.une.edu.au>,
David Bromage <dbro...@metz.une.edu.au> wrote:
>This is assume that the other person wasn't equally psychotic. iF half a
>dozen people at Pt Arthur had guns, do you think the pace would have been
>any safer if they all started firing? I think not.
This is certainly my impression of life in certain parts of the USA.
Although I was living in NY -- a well-known (by American standards)
"bleeding heart pinko" State -- the local media occasionally featured
the "down side" of gun ownership. Aside from the litany of cases
in the immediate area -- kids shooting each other dead because they
had an argument over a toy &ct -- we occasionally saw footage from
Florida on the Nightly News.
Florida had relaxed its hand-gun leg'n so that almost any competent
adult was able to carry one. Initially, no-one was permitted to
carry them concealed. People carried them on hips -- western style.
But, apparently, this caused too many shoot-outs (over grown-up toys,
I gather).
So Florida decided to REQUIRE everyone that was carrying a handgun
to carry it concealed.
Then we saw episodes such as:
Robbers enter bank. There is some banging noises. A few people on
the streets go for their holsters. Some people don't know where the
noise is coming from and look around. Time passes... no-one
comes out of the bank. People still holding a few handguns at the ready...
Police arrive. They draw their guns. Robbers come out. Police shoot at
robbers... robbers shoot at police... general public shoot a cop dead
by mistage... cop shoots member of public dead by mistake...
one robber gets away in result confusion where around a dozen people
on the street -- men, women, young, old -- are shooting at anything
that goes "bang".
This kind of thing was shown at least twice on nat'l news in the
time I was there (less than 10 y).
Kym Horsell
In article <4m4qo8$a...@grissom.powerup.com.au>,
Mark Addinall <addi...@mail.powerup.com.au> wrote:
]Kym Horsell (khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au) wrote:
]: In article <4m24hd$l...@gidora.kralizec.net.au>,
]: Daniel Meijer <dme...@godzilla.zeta.org.au> wrote:
]: >Jeremy Kelaher (jer...@ot.com.au) wrote:
]: >: Come on - trot out your stupid excuses
]: >
]: >Hmmm. You know, people want tighter gun laws because they think this will
]: >magically solve the problem of firearm-related killings. Wake up.
]: >Narcotics are banned. However, if you want them, yo just have to have the
]: >$ and the contacts. Narcotics kill more people than guns ever have in
]: >australia. Imposing a law or a ban on something doesn't stop the problem.
]: >The UK has much tighter gun laws than we do....and they still had Dunblane.
]
]: I 2nd the "wake up" call:
]
]: Here are some interesting stats -- including Dunblane --
]
]: Deaths from "lone gunmen":
]
]Nice non-emotive opening.
]
]: Country Pop'n Deaths
]: Britain 56 mn 70 TOTAL
]: Australia 18 mn 520 pa
]: USA 280 mn 40K pa
]
]: (These numbers may have some "apples and oranges" content)
]
]As per usual.
]
]Firearm deaths registered in Australia in 1994 (most up to date
]study, I have some preliminary figures for 1995-96) - Inter -
]personal violence.
][various stats for Aus (as far as I can see)]
Perhaps you can add the similar stats for the USA and Brit.
Of course the question you're trying hard to divert us from
(as per usual) is "lone gunmen killings" and not "gun assisted
suicide" or "my aunt martha's bum boils".
There is on relatively VALID point you could have made, but apparently
missed (as per usual), the numbers given above are TOTALS in all cases.
I.e.
to which we can add
]: Country Pop'n Deaths (TOTAL) total Homicides pa (c1990)
]: Britain 56 mn 70 c670
]: Australia 18 mn 520 c380
]: USA 280 mn 40K c24.2K
Please feel free to stick to the subject.
Mark Addinall
Chris Gillings (chr...@emphasys.com.au) wrote:
: In article <4m4egu$5...@grissom.powerup.com.au>,
: Mark Addinall <addi...@mail.powerup.com.au> wrote:
: >20th century, posting from SEQEB, how bizarre. When are you dickheads
: >going to replace the transformer in the GAP.
: Stick to the subject, Mark. This is neither the time nor place for
: cheap off-topic shots. I expected better from you.
I do apologise. But the frequent BZZZZZAPPPP of the local transformer
is a worry.
: >: Ben PETERS
: >: (Flame me if you dare)
: >
: >Ho hum, you're lightweight, no need for flames.
: How very big of you. Are you going to be as condescending to me?
Possibly not.
: I was slowly developing the impression (from his participation in
: aus.personals) that Mark was a 'mensch'. "Bang" goes that theory. ;-)
Ah, fertile hunting grounds indeed ;) A target rich environment,
if one knows how to whistle up the quarry.
: And before you accuse me of being unfamiliar with guns: I've fired
: weapons ranging from a BB gun to military hardware such as 9mm
: Browning automatics, SLRs and F1 SMGs. I'm a good shot and have
: killed my share of bunny rabbits with the old bolt-action .22.
No people? Good.
: Nevertheless I find the sense of 'power' that surges in me while
: holding a firearm somewhat disturbing. I choose not to own one
: and have long since destroyed my licence.
Chris, if you are uneasy owning a firearm and you want to get rid of it,
then good. All blessing to your common sense.
: A friend of mine had a
: six-shot repeating .22 when this debate last arose. I hounded
: him until he handed it in to the police.
And you must be an influence on your mates as well. All well and good.
Just please try not to spend a load of money, on a project that will
not work (demonsterably) as a result of this tragedy.
: --
: Chris Gillings - Systems Administrator - Emphasys Corporation Pty Ltd
: Level 2, 34-36 Chandos Street, St Leonards, N.S.W. 2065, Australia
: email:chr...@emphasys.com.au Voice:61-2-9906-4611 Fax:61-2-9906-4747
: "Quidvis recte factum quamvis humile praeclarum" - F.H.Royce:Mechanic
Mark.
Mark Addinall
Phil Carey (fil...@melbpc.org.au) wrote:
: Brian <br...@coombs.anu.edu.au> wrote:
: >
: > And it has a mcuh higher rate of accidental deaths (particularly
: >amongst the children of the gun owning population) it also has a much
: >higher rate of murders as people attempt to _make_ other people polite
: >towards them.
: >
: People keep saying this...... source?
: > If your claim was true then America, which has the highest rate
: >of gun ownership per capita in the world would be extremely polite. It
: >isn't, therefore you comment is a furphy.
: ^^^^^
: I thought a furphy was a rumour??
: >>
: >> Do you want to have a look at some worldwide homicide stats?
: >
: > Several have been posted in this newgroup already. In all, those
: >states with the highest ownership of guns have the highest rate of
: >homicides. Perhaps you'd care to draw the correlation?
: Per capita? I didn't see these stats ...was Sweden included?
No one has seen these stats. They exist only in the imagionations
of a few.
Finland been included boys?
: Cheers
: --
: Phil Carey - fil...@melbpc.org.au
: Member, Melbourne PC User Group.
: "What is it that it is?" - Hugo.
Mark.
Gary Woodman
On 30 Apr 1996, Mark Addinall wrote:
> David Bromage (dbro...@metz.une.edu.au) wrote:
>
> : This is assume that the other person wasn't equally psychotic. iF half a
> : dozen people at Pt Arthur had guns, do you think the pace would have been
> : any safer if they all started firing? I think not.
>
> I think so. I know, if I was at the site I would have shot the prick dead.
Well, if I was at the site, I would have turned him into a birthday cake,
and we could have had a nice little party.
This is a discussion? Go to bed, Mark.
Peter Mackay
In article <4m2ah8$n...@gidora.kralizec.net.au>,
rip...@zeta.org.au wrote:
> I cannot think of one good reason why anyone should need to have a
> weapon at home. OK if you are a collector, why not lodge the firing
> pin/bolt with the local police at time of registration.
Yeah right. You do this and when you come to sell your valuable item you
find that they fish around in a drawer full of rusty bolts and bent firing
pins and discover that they gave yours away to someone else, but you can
have his so it all evens out.
~ m
u U Cheers!
\|
|> -Peter Mackay
/ \ pete...@ozemail.com.au
_\ /_
Merlin Zener
Gary Woodman wrote:
>
> On 30 Apr 1996, Mark Addinall wrote:
>
> Well, if I was at the site, I would have turned him into a birthday cake,
> and we could have had a nice little party.
>
> This is a discussion? Go to bed, Mark.
I suppose if you were at the site, you'd have turned belly up and made
it 36? What help would that have been?
--
Merlin Zener phone (+61) (0)18 779 594
Musician, Technician fax (+61) (0)7 5578 5011
Gold Coast, Australia email mer...@ion.com.au
http://www.ion.com.au/~merlin
"research shows that no-one ever went blind from
looking on the bright side of life"
Mark Addinall
Kym Horsell (khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au) wrote:
: In article <4m4cvk$7...@grivel.une.edu.au>,
: David Bromage <dbro...@metz.une.edu.au> wrote:
Fuck this is so funny...
: Robbers enter bank. There is some banging noises. A few people on
: the streets go for their holsters. Some people don't know where the
: noise is coming from and look around. Time passes... no-one
: comes out of the bank. People still holding a few handguns at the ready...
: Police arrive. They draw their guns. Robbers come out. Police shoot at
: robbers... robbers shoot at police... general public shoot a cop dead
: by mistage... cop shoots member of public dead by mistake...
: one robber gets away in result confusion where around a dozen people
: on the street -- men, women, young, old -- are shooting at anything
: that goes "bang".
: This kind of thing was shown at least twice on nat'l news in the
: time I was there (less than 10 y).
And this is one of the persons that reckon gun owners watch too much
telly. Could you please work in a helicopter and a few horses into
the story. We could probably even franchise it.
I loved it. Thank you Kym.
: --
: R. Kym Horsell
: KHor...@EE.Latrobe.EDU.AU k...@CS.Binghamton.EDU
: http://WWW.EE.LaTrobe.EDU.AU/~khorsell http://CS.Binghamton.EDU/~kym
Gee, lots of empirical research going on at Latrobe.
Mark (yippee) Addinall.
Mark Addinall
Kym Horsell (khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au) wrote:
: In article <4m4qo8$a...@grissom.powerup.com.au>,
: Mark Addinall <addi...@mail.powerup.com.au> wrote:
: ]Kym Horsell (khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au) wrote:
: ]: In article <4m24hd$l...@gidora.kralizec.net.au>,
: ]: Daniel Meijer <dme...@godzilla.zeta.org.au> wrote:
: ]: >Jeremy Kelaher (jer...@ot.com.au) wrote:
: ]: >: Come on - trot out your stupid excuses
: ]: >
: ]: >Hmmm. You know, people want tighter gun laws because they think this will
: ]: >magically solve the problem of firearm-related killings. Wake up.
: ]: >Narcotics are banned. However, if you want them, yo just have to have the
: ]: >$ and the contacts. Narcotics kill more people than guns ever have in
: ]: >australia. Imposing a law or a ban on something doesn't stop the problem.
: ]: >The UK has much tighter gun laws than we do....and they still had Dunblane.
: ]: >
: ]
: ]: I 2nd the "wake up" call:
: ]
: ]: Here are some interesting stats -- including Dunblane --
: ]
: ]: Deaths from "lone gunmen":
: ]
: ]Nice non-emotive opening.
: ]
: ]: Country Pop'n Deaths
: ]: Britain 56 mn 70 TOTAL
: ]: Australia 18 mn 520 pa
: ]: USA 280 mn 40K pa
: ]
: ]: (These numbers may have some "apples and oranges" content)
: ]
: ]As per usual.
: ]
: ]Firearm deaths registered in Australia in 1994 (most up to date
: ]study, I have some preliminary figures for 1995-96) - Inter -
: ]personal violence.
: ][various stats for Aus (as far as I can see)]
: Perhaps you can add the similar stats for the USA and Brit.
If you wish.
: Of course the question you're trying hard to divert us from
: (as per usual) is "lone gunmen killings" and not "gun assisted
: suicide" or "my aunt martha's bum boils".
: There is on relatively VALID point you could have made, but apparently
: missed (as per usual), the numbers given above are TOTALS in all cases.
: I.e.
: to which we can add
: ]: Country Pop'n Deaths (TOTAL) total Homicides pa (c1990)
: ]: Britain 56 mn 70 c670
: ]: Australia 18 mn 520 c380
: ]: USA 280 mn 40K c24.2K
: Please feel free to stick to the subject.
I see you snipped the real figures. Doesn't look quite bad enough
does it. You posted the above figures as a representative of
'lone gunman' killings and I posted the facts. You are clearly
mis-representing collected statistics.
Please feel free to stick to the subject.
: --
: R. Kym Horsell
: KHor...@EE.Latrobe.EDU.AU k...@CS.Binghamton.EDU
: http://WWW.EE.LaTrobe.EDU.AU/~khorsell http://CS.Binghamton.EDU/~kym
Mark.
Merlin Zener
Gary Woodman wrote:
>
> [...snip]
> I take great exception to the idea that I'm forced to carry a gun, and
> learn how to use it, to protect myself from maniacs with highly developed
> killing machines that they obtained without any questions being asked.
> That's not the society I want to live in, a feeling shared I imagine by
> the vast majority of Australians.
that's your choice. I just know that if *I* was to be confronted by some
weirdo with a semi-auto, *I'd* like to be able to defend myself.
Merlin Zener
Adrian Morrisson wrote:
>
>
> Yeah Right. Most people I know would go visit a Tourist site with a gun
> for safety, just in case a weirdo shows up. NOT
It wouldn't take much to just have a rifle in the car - "just in case".
We have seatbelts and (occasionally) first aid kits... "just in case"
Mark Addinall
: > making this experience an all time low. The gut was a fucking screwball.
: > If he didn't have a gun, his creative mind would have planned an
: > ingeneous method of offing a few dozen people I'm sure.
: Since you know him so well, why didn't you warn anyone?
Usual no-brain response from a hand-waver. Let's see if it gets any
better shall we?
: > : I cannot think of one good reason why anyone should need to have a
: > : weapon at home.
: >
: > How about for shooting crazy people that want to break in?
: You know quite well that this is far less common than crazies wandering
: the streets, arbitrarily murdering people. If you are this paranoid, I
: suggest you seek professional help.
Stats please. And my mental health is OK. She indoors works in
that arena.
: > : I'm afraid this anti-gun/pro-gun argument is one that will never be
: > : resolved as on both sides of the fence it is argued that personal
: > : liberties are being infringed upon. Tell me who you think would feel
: > : more hard done by - a person who has had their weapon taken away or
: > : someone who has had a family member or friend taken away? An
: > : emotional argument - yes, but an extremely valid one none-the-less.
: >
: > An extremely invalid argument. Why not ban cars?
: Because they are not designed as, nor used as, weapons of mass murder.
Oh, the mass murder thing again. Sorry, you can't have a rational
argument, maybe I'll just have to shoot you instead.
: Gary
: --
: In sympathy for innocent victims everywhere -
: Get Rid Of The Guns
Mark.
Mark Addinall
: > Brian (br...@coombs.anu.edu.au) wrote:
: > : On Tue, 30 Apr 1996, Merlin Zener wrote:
: >
: > : > rip...@zeta.org.au wrote:
: > : > >
: > : > > [...big snip]
: > : > >
: > : > > I cannot think of one good reason why anyone should need to have a
: > : > > weapon at home.
: > : >
: > : > Well the most obvious is to protect yourself!!!
: >
: > : If no one has a gun, then you won't need one to "defend yourself"
: > : with one, now will you?
: >
: > So, Oh learned one. Just how do you propose disarming the planet Earth?
: Mark, there's no need to divert the discussion away from Australian gun
: control. In fact, it's no problem - just make it anti-social to own a gun,
: just like it's become anti-social to drive drunk, to cheat on your tax, to
: rape your date. People will hand in their guns because they don't want
: them.
: > : More guns in society is not the solution to violence in our society!
: >
: > Correct, but an armed society is a polite society.
: You couldn't be more arse-about; a polite society doesn't need arms.
: > Do you want to have a look at some worldwide homicide stats?
: No.
I assumed you would not let facts get in the way of your
hand waving exersize. You're a pleb.
: However, feel free to describe how such stats might be relevant to
: Australian gun control.
: Gary
Mark Addinall
Glenn Reither (gl...@loose.apana.org.au) wrote:
: In <4m512a$a...@grissom.powerup.com.au> addi...@powerup.com.au (Mark Addinall) writes:
: >Ian Staples (sta...@planet.mh.dpi.qld.gov.au) wrote:
: >: dbro...@metz.une.edu.au (David Bromage) writes:
: >: The victim has more chance of surviving an amateur attack
: >: with a knife or a blunt instrument.
: >This is of course a fact you can provide sources for.
: >Canadians are a bit anal at collecting stats. Lets have a look at
: >'Firearms and Violent Crime in Canada - 1988/1991'
: >Non-Firearm 94.9%
: >Handgun 2.3%
: >Rifle/Shotgun 2.8%
: >Note: "Non-Firearm" includes knives, blunt instruments and other
: >physical force.
: >Source: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Weapons and Violent
: >Crime, Aug 1991, p. 2, pp. 10-13.
: Hardly suprising when you think about it.
: 2 questions: Anyone recently killed 30+ people with a blunt instrument?
: Are semi-automatic weapons good for chopping the carrots or changing a washer?
: If they are I can understand why someone might need one.
They are good for shooting pigs, goats, foxes and bunnies.
: --
: Glenn Reither <gl...@loose.apana.org.au>
Mark (put those carrots into the bunny stew, tastes good).
Mark Addinall
Toxic (eev...@cc.curtin.edu.au) wrote:
: addi...@powerup.com.au (Mark Addinall) wrote:
: >California has some of the tightest gun=control laws in the US. Nearly
: >as bad as DC. Would you care to look at the facts for a change?
: Yeah I hear it takes an hour and you can't get them over them phone
: any more!
You hear wrong. Facts please.
: >: >: More guns only make it easier for people to commit _more_
: >: >: violence, not _less_ violence!
: >Your slipping from average dumb to clueless. More guns/Less guns is not
: >the issue when considering homicides or suicides in a general population.
: >I know you would like everyone to beleive so, but it isn't true.
: Source?
: More guns = More Violent Crime. It is a fact.
Good. Then you will supply a proof?
: Gun owners are more likely to shoot themselves or a friend than an
: unknown intruder . Check the facts for yourself or watch the news,
: most people are shot be someone they know.
See my posting elsewhere on this group to see the official stats.
And after to-night, watching the news as a source of enlightenment
has hit an all time low.
: It is hard to shoot someone without a gun. Even you can figure that
: one out.
Ooooh, gee. Maybe I should enroll at UNE to get some of that smart rubbed
of on me.
: >: Cheers
: >: David
: >: -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
: >: David Bromage dbro...@metz.une.edu.au
: >: Department of Chemistry
: >: University of New England "On the Internet people who are normally
: >: Armidale, NSW 2351 under rocks are out there and in your
: >: Australia face" - Douglas Adams
Mark.
Mark Addinall
: > David Bromage (dbro...@metz.une.edu.au) wrote:
: >
: > : This is assume that the other person wasn't equally psychotic. iF half a
: > : dozen people at Pt Arthur had guns, do you think the pace would have been
: > : any safer if they all started firing? I think not.
: >
: > I think so. I know, if I was at the site I would have shot the prick dead.
: Well, if I was at the site, I would have turned him into a birthday cake,
: and we could have had a nice little party.
: This is a discussion? Go to bed, Mark.
No, because you lack the knowledge to debate. I think I'll stay up
for just a little while longer thank you.
Mark Addinall
David Bromage (dbro...@metz.une.edu.au) wrote:
: >: >Brian (br...@coombs.anu.edu.au) wrote:
: >: >
: >: >
: >: >Correct, but an armed society is a polite society.
: >
: >: Remind me never to go driving in California.
: >California has some of the tightest gun=control laws in the US. Nearly
: >as bad as DC. Would you care to look at the facts for a change?
: That doesn't stop motorists shooting at each other on the freeways.
Correct.
Mark Addinall
David Bromage (dbro...@metz.une.edu.au) wrote:
: Mark Addinall (addi...@powerup.com.au) wrote:
: >David Bromage (dbro...@metz.une.edu.au) wrote:
: >
: >Errrrmmmmmm, hunting game and claiming land.
: The oldest muzzle loader from the 16th century was hardly accurate enough
: to hit moving game.
Errrrmmmmm. They were used in a lot of wars, to some effect as
I have read.
: As to claiming land, this infers that you are taking it from somebody, or
: going to defend it from somebody else. What are you going to do if the
: owner doesn't want to give it up? You just scored an own goal there, Mark.
No try. I pointed out the usage. You swing to football. 12-0.
Mark Addinall
Brian (br...@coombs.anu.edu.au) wrote:
: On 30 Apr 1996, Mark Addinall wrote:
: > David Bromage (dbro...@metz.une.edu.au) wrote:
: > : Mark Addinall (addi...@powerup.com.au) wrote:
: > : >Brian (br...@coombs.anu.edu.au) wrote:
[ snip, to preserve Brian's bandwidth concerns ]
: You're obviously the one whom needs to look at facts. California
: is not only place in the US where guns have been used on freeway, it just
: happens more often there. It is obvious that US society is not polite,
: despite the massive number of guns there.
Study the demographics of gun deaths in the US and worldwide. When you
are a little better informed we can talk.
: >
: > : >: More guns only make it easier for people to commit _more_
: > : >: violence, not _less_ violence!
: > : >
: > : >Incorrect. High school logic would throw that argument down.
: >
: > : I fail to see how more guns is going to cause less violence. Even the
: > : sanest person can snap at some time. If such a person, previously deemed
: > : to be sane, owns a gun then there is every chance that he/she will use it.
: >
: > Your slipping from average dumb to clueless. More guns/Less guns is not
: > the issue when considering homicides or suicides in a general population.
: Care to explain the fact that with the highest ownership of guns
: per capita the US also has the highest rate of gun-related violence? The
: ready availablity of firearms has ensured that US society is one of the
: most violent on Earth.
Blatently not true. Proof?
: ps. Please stop quoting back people's signatures to them. It simply
: wastes bandwidth.
Ok. I've snipped your dumb .sig, better?
Mark.
Mark Addinall
: > Brian (br...@coombs.anu.edu.au) wrote:
: > : On 30 Apr 1996, Mark Addinall wrote:
: > : > So, Oh learned one. Just how do you propose disarming the planet Earth?
: > : I'm so glad that you recognise my superior intelligence. I
: > : don't. I propose to simply disarm one little corner of it.
: >
: > So it's just your place then? Good.
: Yes, its called "Australia".
So you own all of it?
: > : >
: > : > : More guns in society is not the solution to violence in our society!
: > : >
: > : > Correct, but an armed society is a polite society.
: > : >
: >
: > : And it has a mcuh higher rate of accidental deaths (particularly
: > : amongst the children of the gun owning population) it also has a much
: > : higher rate of murders as people attempt to _make_ other people polite
: > : towards them.
: >
: > Please post your stats.
: >
: I've been through all this over 6 years ago in
: talk.politics.guns.usa. I no longer have them, having had several
: different jobs since then and having moved states. You can choose to
: either believe me or not. The choice is yours. I suspect though I know
: which it will be.
No I don't believe you. You can't get the name of a newsgroup right, I
suspect everything you post.
: > : If your claim was true then America, which has the highest rate
: > : of gun ownership per capita in the world would be extremely polite. It
: > : isn't, therefore you comment is a furphy.
: >
: > Incorrect and (possibly) correct. Have you ahd a look at
: > the figures on USA homicides, by state and demographic
: > breakdown?
: That has absolutely *_NOTHING_* to do with the point I was
: making! Please stick to the argument. If guns make a politer society,
: why then is American society so impolite? Impolite to the point of
: killing one another with their guns?
You're not making any points, exept the popular one at the moment, that
_GUNS_ are _EVIL_.
: > > : > : More guns only make it easier for people to commit _more_ > : > : violence, not _less_ violence!
: > : >
: > : > Incorrect. High school logic would throw that argument down.
: > : >
: > : Witnmess the stats that others have posted comparing the rates of
: > : homicide in Seattle with Vancouver. In one gun control is laxer than the
: > : other. The more strict gun control regime has a much lower rate of gun
: > : related crime.
: >
: > False. As far as I am aware, I am the only person to publish some numbers
: > with a reliable reference. Post your proofs. I will need method and
: > results. Failing that I'll just regard you as another hand-waving
: > idiot.
: Several others have posted "numbers". I suggest you read the
: rest of the newsgroup, before putting your foot in your mouth.
Yeah. Well I spend a bit of time in here and I have not seen any
'numbers' posted by anyone that would stand up to about 30 seconds
of scrutiny.
: > : I have, several years ago, when I used to argue this sort of crap
: > : with the real gun nuts in talk.politics.guns.usa, seen posted the stats
: > : for Australia in the first quarter of this century when gun control laws
: > : were introduced in most states (in response to the alarming increase in
: > : gun related crime after the return of WWI veterans from OS). There was a
: > : marked decline immediately after the introduction of gun control laws.
: >
: > That's talk.politics.guns (no USA).
: It should be, considering its degreee of relevance to the rest of
: the world (for some strange reason its very hard to convince American gun
: nuts that the US constitution is not releveant to the rest of the world).
Just pointing out your awful newbie mistake. I agree, the stats
of gun related crime have nothing to do with Australia. Why do you
always point to the 'USA problem' if you agree with me?
: > The 'marked decline' did not,
: > and has not ever happened. Check your numbers.
: >
: For a person whom has (a) never seen the stats of which I am
: spoeaking (by your own admission) and (b) seems to have some problems
: with stats of all kinds, you refutation of them is rather remarkable,
: don't you think?
Post them again, Oh well researched one. I'd love to see your proof
scrutinised in a public forum.
: > : > Do you want to have a look at some worldwide homicide stats?
: >
: > : Several have been posted in this newgroup already. In all, those
: > : states with the highest ownership of guns have the highest rate of
: > : homicides. Perhaps you'd care to draw the correlation?
: >
: > Perhaps you would like to walk us all through your analysis of the
: > correlation? While you are astounding me with your intellect, perhaps
: > you could explain the ratios of violent crime involving firearms
: > between, say, Israel and Japan?
: No, why don't you tell us whats wrong with me drawing a
: correlation between gun ownership and violence within a society? I'm
: sure, oh, superior and smug one, that you can demostrate your superiority
: to all of us by showing your superior statistical knowledge.
No doubt.
: While I am sure that you will put down the reason why people in
: these countries resort to violence is becasue of factoers other than the
: presence of guns, what you will fail to take into account is that the
: violence that is committed is greatly facilitated by the presence of guns.
Proof?
: > : Guns are not the sole cause of homocides, there are many others,
: > : including the economic outlook of the perpetrators. However, as long as
: > : society refuses to address the problems of the have-nots versus those of
: > : the haves, the only way to decrease the homocide rate is to introduce
: > : stricter gun controls.
: >
: > Or shoot all of the poor people.
: I will treat that suggestion with the contempt that it deserves.
Makes as much sense as your (non) argument.
Mark.
Mark Addinall
David Bromage (dbro...@metz.une.edu.au) wrote:
: Brian (br...@coombs.anu.edu.au) wrote:
: > Care to explain the fact that with the highest ownership of guns
: >per capita the US also has the highest rate of gun-related violence? The
: >ready availablity of firearms has ensured that US society is one of the
: >most violent on Earth.
: I couldn't have put it better. Where does the US Army (and even the
: Australian army on occasions) send their medics to gain experience in
: treating gunshot wounds? New York City.
You do have it documented as to the training recieved by Medics in
11 FD Ambulance, 1 MIL HOSP and possibly 2 FD Ambulance all troop over to
the US to work in New York city hospitals.
<fart noise> Idiot.
Phil Carey
Gary Woodman <ga...@zip.com.au> wrote:
>That's not the society I want to live in, a feeling shared I imagine by
^^^^^^
>the vast majority of Australians.
Now we're starting to get some honesty from Gary.
.
Chris Maltby
:Gary Woodman wrote:
:> [...snip]
:> I take great exception to the idea that I'm forced to carry a gun, and
:> learn how to use it, to protect myself from maniacs with highly developed
:> killing machines that they obtained without any questions being asked.
:> the vast majority of Australians.
So Merlin Zener <mer...@ion.com.au> writes:
:No-ones forcing you to carry a gun. If you want to walk around defenceless,
:that's your choice. I just know that if *I* was to be confronted by some
:weirdo with a semi-auto, *I'd* like to be able to defend myself.
But here's the rub. Why should your supposed "right" to defend yourself
compromise my actual right to safety? Life cannot be free of risk, but
we work as a society to minimise risk, not to increase it, especially
for misguided reasons like yours.
--
Chris Maltby - Softway Pty Ltd Internet: ch...@sw.oz.au
PHONE: +61-2-698-2322 "In most companies the Managing Director has
FAX: +61-2-699-9174 his office in the future." _- Mark V. Shaney
Phil Carey
Gary Woodman <ga...@zip.com.au> wrote:
>On 30 Apr 1996, Gareth Bull wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately
>> there are people who would rather hang onto certain guns illegally in the
>> face of having to give them up (eg: miltary style automatic guns).
>
>I'm afraid you're right. Are these the criminals and latent psychos from
>whom we need protection?
Well Gary you tell me. I know a sergeant of police in Victoria who,
when Cain was attempting to disarm the states shooters vowed that he
would not hand his weapons in.
An interest in and appreciation of firearms does not, despite all the
rhetoric, make one a latent psycho.
Chris Maltby
addi...@powerup.com.au (Mark Addinall) writes over and over again:
:Yeah. Well I spend a bit of time in here and I have not seen any
:'numbers' posted by anyone that would stand up to about 30 seconds
:of scrutiny.
And all we have seen from him are a cacophany of demands for others
to disprove his increasingly hysterical assertions. And when that
doesn't seem to fit, he just damns them as idiots for having the
temerity to disagree with him.
So, Mark, where is _your_ proof that widespread gun ownership is
beneficial to society? Where are your detailed demographics and
unbiased, referenced statistics which show that CONCEALED HANDGUN
permits have prevented gun deaths. Show us the assumptions you
have made in converting foreign statistics to predict Australian
outcomes. Or just do us all a favour and f*ck off!
David Bromage
Mark Addinall (addi...@powerup.com.au) wrote:
>David Bromage (dbro...@metz.une.edu.au) wrote:
>: Mark Addinall (addi...@powerup.com.au) wrote:
>: >: Come on, Mark. Think carefully........ Why were guns invented?
>: >
>: >Errrrmmmmmm, hunting game and claiming land.
>
>: The oldest muzzle loader from the 16th century was hardly accurate enough
>: to hit moving game.
>
>Errrrmmmmm. They were used in a lot of wars, to some effect as
>I have read.
Exactly. That's what they were designed for, killing people.
Jason Royals
> > An extremely invalid argument. Why not ban cars?
>
> Because they are not designed as, nor used as, weapons of mass murder.
>
Is this suggesting that guns have been primarily designed for mass
murders? So my .22 target rifle is really a tool for the purpouse of
the destruction of the human race!
Have you ever considered that one reason to go from a bow/arrow to a gun
was for better efficiency at hunting animals for food?
> Gary
> --
> In sympathy for innocent victims everywhere -
agreed..
> Get Rid Of The Guns
disagreed...
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Don't punish the innocent | Why not visit my web site?
for the crimes of the |
guilty | http://dove.mtx.net.au/~jroyals
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jason Royals
Bilby wrote:
>
> Why do people need guns?
Have you never heard of target shooting (and yes, some of us do actually
enjoy it).
Scot
addi...@powerup.com.au (Mark Addinall) writes:
>If he didn't have a gun, his creative mind would have planned an
>ingeneous method of offing a few dozen people I'm sure.
If this be true, then where are all the looney multiple homicides NOT
using guns then eh? Surely there must be at least SOME maniacs who can't
already get guns - and use some other weapon instead? So just where are
all their multiple victims then? So why haven't we already seen headlines
like '35 strangled dead in cafe' or '29 knifed in shopping mall' or even
'20 squashed flat by Mac Truck'?
--
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\ System-X Communications - http://sysx.apana.org.au/ /
/ computer mediated communications for computer mediated artists \
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Scot
Gary Woodman <ga...@zip.com.au> writes:
>On 30 Apr 1996, Mark Addinall wrote:
>> making this experience an all time low. The gut was a fucking screwball.
>> If he didn't have a gun, his creative mind would have planned an
>> ingeneous method of offing a few dozen people I'm sure.
>Since you know him so well, why didn't you warn anyone?
Gary,
Mark's just drawing on the only limited experience he's ever had - his own
mind.
scot.
Gareth Bull
Merlin Zener <mer...@ion.com.au> writes:
> Gary Woodman wrote:
>>
>> [...snip]
>> I take great exception to the idea that I'm forced to carry a gun, and
>> learn how to use it, to protect myself from maniacs with highly developed
>> killing machines that they obtained without any questions being asked.
>> That's not the society I want to live in, a feeling shared I imagine by
>> the vast majority of Australians.
> that's your choice. I just know that if *I* was to be confronted by some
> weirdo with a semi-auto, *I'd* like to be able to defend myself.
And if I happen to be in the immediate vicinity of that, *I'd* like to be
reassured that I'm not going to end up collecting one of *your* bullets in
*my* body. You have the right to defend yourself, I do not argue with that
contention in any way. However, you do *NOT* have the right to endanger me
or anyone else in the process of defending yourself. Now, if you can convince
me that you can use a gun in a public place in a manner that will present no
danger to innocent bystanders, I will support your argument. When bystanders
are getting hit by bullets, does it really matter who's gun they come from?
Garet...@cc.monash.edu.au
DOD# 251 '84 VF 750 Closet Ducatisto
Disclaimer: I'm just a jay walker on the Information Superhighway!
Daniel Meijer
Mark Addinall (addi...@powerup.com.au) wrote:
: : I couldn't have put it better. Where does the US Army (and even the
: : Australian army on occasions) send their medics to gain experience in
: : treating gunshot wounds? New York City.
: You do have it documented as to the training recieved by Medics in
: 11 FD Ambulance, 1 MIL HOSP and possibly 2 FD Ambulance all troop over to
: the US to work in New York city hospitals.
: <fart noise> Idiot.
Actually, when I was in the Cadets a few yrs ago (1990) we were mock
casualties for an exercise called "Brown Diamond" conducted by ? MIL HOSP
(Holsworthy) and 12 FD AMB, where some of the regular army medics mentioned
going to New York....maybe he's not an idiot after all.
--
||||||||
| ^ ^ |
(| * * |)
--------oOOo---(__)---oOOo--------
Daniel Meijer - Sydney, Australia.
dme...@zeta.org.au
p303...@hardy.ocs.mq.edu.au
----------------------------------
Daniel Meijer
David Bromage (dbro...@metz.une.edu.au) wrote:
: I couldn't have put it better. Where does the US Army (and even the
: Australian army on occasions) send their medics to gain experience in
: treating gunshot wounds? New York City.
Despite the fact that New York has a total ban on guns in the city?
Banning works hey gary?
Phil Carey
bu...@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (Gareth Bull) wrote:
>Merlin Zener <mer...@ion.com.au> writes:
>> Gary Woodman wrote:
>>> [...snip]
>And if I happen to be in the immediate vicinity of that, *I'd* like to be
>reassured that I'm not going to end up collecting one of *your* bullets in
>*my* body. You have the right to defend yourself, I do not argue with that
>contention in any way. However, you do *NOT* have the right to endanger me
>or anyone else in the process of defending yourself. Now, if you can convince
>me that you can use a gun in a public place in a manner that will present no
>danger to innocent bystanders, I will support your argument. When bystanders
>are getting hit by bullets, does it really matter who's gun they come from?
No it doesn't.
Under the law in Vic the first consideration for justification of use
of a firearm is that innocent bystanders must not be endangered. Fail
this and go to goal.
Blair Trewin
In article <4m7lfr$q...@grissom.powerup.com.au>,
Mark Addinall <addi...@mail.powerup.com.au> wrote:
>Study the demographics of gun deaths in the US and worldwide. When you
>are a little better informed we can talk.
aren't familiar with the language used in the gun debate in the US.
'The demographics' is normally a euphemism for 'if you forget about
the blacks-and who cares about them anyway?-our murder rates wouldn't
look so bad', and is used frequently by the pro-gun lobby.
Blair Trewin
(who is just a little sceptical as to how much chance any of the
would-be virtual heroes on this newsgroup would have had of pulling
out a gun, aiming it and firing in less time than it took for someone
who was firing a semi-automatic more or less continuously and,
according to witnesses, shooting anything that moved, to point his
gun in their direction.....)
Tim Lambert
>Ian Staples (sta...@planet.mh.dpi.qld.gov.au) wrote:
>: The trouble with using a gun to do this is that guns tend to be *very*
>: unforgiving. The victim has more chance of surviving an amateur attack
>: with a knife or a blunt instrument.
>Canadians are a bit anal at collecting stats. Lets have a look at
>'Firearms and Violent Crime in Canada - 1988/1991'
>Non-Firearm 94.9%
>Handgun 2.3%
>Rifle/Shotgun 2.8%
So firearms are used in 5% of violent crime in Canada. They are used
in 34% of homicides (see
http://www.mae.carleton.ca/~ijeff/guns/cdn-firearms/Stats/homocide.can.1992 )
It would seem that a violent crime committed with a firearm is about 10
times as likely to result in the victim's death. ((34/5)/(66/95)=9.8)
Tim
Tim Lambert
In article <4m4v59$a...@grissom.powerup.com.au> addi...@powerup.com.au (Mark Addinall) writes:
>Brian (br...@coombs.anu.edu.au) wrote:
>: I have, several years ago, when I used to argue this sort of crap
>: with the real gun nuts in talk.politics.guns.usa, seen posted the stats
>: for Australia in the first quarter of this century when gun control laws
>: were introduced in most states (in response to the alarming increase in
>: gun related crime after the return of WWI veterans from OS). There was a
>: marked decline immediately after the introduction of gun control laws.
>That's talk.politics.guns (no USA). The 'marked decline' did not,
>and has not ever happened. Check your numbers.
Here's that posting again, so that you can check the numbers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: lam...@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Date: 15 Jan 92 23:22:57
Organization: CS&E, Uni of NSW, Australia
Distribution:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Effects of gun control in Australia
In a previous posting I observed that the homicide rate in New South
Wales fell dramatically following the introduction of gun controls in
1920.
Here, again, is the graph showing the homicide rate in NSW from 1900-1977.
(Vertical scale is homicide rate per 100 000 population)
3 * ***
2.8
2.6 ** * **
2.4 * *
2.2 * *
2.0 * * *
1.8 * * * * * ** * * *
1.6 * ** *** * * * ** ** ** ** *
1.4** * ** * * ** * *** * * * *
1.2 * ** * ** ** * * *
1.0 * * * *
0.8 * *
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567
It is quite possible that the decline in the homicide rate was caused
by factors other than gun control (e.g changing demographics, improved
law enforcement, better birth control methods). To test this
hypothesis, we need a control, an adjacent state that did not
introduce gun control in 1920, to see if that state also experienced a
similar decline after 1920. Victoria introduced gun controls into
1921 and Queensland in 1927, so I decided to look at Queensland.
I couldn't find any data for the homicide rate in Queensland prior to
72. I was able to find the numbers of people charged with
manslaughter and murder from 1900-1977. Adding these and dividing by
the population each year gives the homicide charge rate per 100 000
people, which is the vertical scale on the following graph.
9.0 *
8.5
8.0
7.5 * * *
7.0* * *
6.5 *
6.0 * *
5.5 * | *
5.0 * * *| * * *
4.5 ** * | * * **
4.0 * *** * * |* * * * * * ** * * * *
3.5 * * * | * * *** ** * * ** ** *
3.0 * | * | * ** * * *
2.5 | | ** *** * * * *
2.0 | |
1.5 | | *
0 1 2 | 3 4 5 6 7
012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Woodman
On 1 May 1996, Mark Addinall wrote:
> Gary Woodman (ga...@zip.com.au) wrote:
> : On 30 Apr 1996, Mark Addinall wrote:
>
> : > Brian (br...@coombs.anu.edu.au) wrote:
> : > : On Tue, 30 Apr 1996, Merlin Zener wrote:
> : >
> : > : > rip...@zeta.org.au wrote:
> : > : > >
> : > : > > [...big snip]
> : > : > >
> : > : > > I cannot think of one good reason why anyone should need to have a
> : > : > > weapon at home.
> : > : >
> : > : > Well the most obvious is to protect yourself!!!
> : >
> : > : If no one has a gun, then you won't need one to "defend yourself"
> : > : with one, now will you?
> : >
> : > So, Oh learned one. Just how do you propose disarming the planet Earth?
>
> : Mark, there's no need to divert the discussion away from Australian gun
> : control. In fact, it's no problem - just make it anti-social to own a gun,
> : just like it's become anti-social to drive drunk, to cheat on your tax, to
> : rape your date. People will hand in their guns because they don't want
> : them.
>
> : > : More guns in society is not the solution to violence in our society!
> : >
> : > Correct, but an armed society is a polite society.
>
> : You couldn't be more arse-about; a polite society doesn't need arms.
>
> : > Do you want to have a look at some worldwide homicide stats?
>
> : No.
>
> I assumed you would not let facts get in the way of your
If you have facts, post them. Of course I don't want to see "facts" which
you have carefully selected to demonstrate your case; I'm doing my own
research, thanks all the same.
But why ask? Because it's a trick question, to give you an opportunity
for a personal attack which diverts the discussion from gun control.
How about this for a fact? I'm sure it doesn't suit your laissez-faire
agenda, but hey, we're only talking hand-waving here, right?
"Members of both sides of federal Parliament expressed overwhelming
support yesterday for tougher uniform gun laws in a survey conducted by
The Australian" (The Australian, 25/4/96, p.4)
And since I'm such a helpful bloke, here's another fact, no extra charge:
"I speak for my two colleagues". The Prime Minister, John Howard,
referring to his deputy, Tim Fischer, and the Leader of the Opposition,
Kim Beazley (The Australian, 2/5/96, p.5)
> hand waving exersize. You're a pleb.
Definition please.
You should be more careful in your choice of words, Mark - I might not be
insulted. It's unlikely that you mean what I understand of this term, but
I'm a little surprised to find myself supporting my fellow pleb, Mr.
Suburbia himself, Little Johnny Howard, the Prime Minister of Australia.
Gary
--
In sympathy for innocent victims everywhere -
Graham Stoney
You might have to excuse me for appearing fatalistic here, but I find it very
difficult to imagine that there will be any substantial lasting changes to gun
laws brought about by the recent events in Tasmania.
To my mind, the benefits of gun ownership brought to the minority of
Australians who own a gun are outweighed by the high cost paid each year by
those people who die or are wounded in shooting incidents.
Some people want the right to own a gun, and they value the perceived
benefits/enjoyment that they gain from it more highly than the lives of those
people who would be saved if our society chose to ban guns altogether. Of
course some people may brand this "simplistic" or a "knee jerk reaction", but
the fact remains that if I have a gun in my hand, I can shoot someone. If I
don't have a gun in my hand, I can't. Banning guns outright would
substantially reduce the access that most people have to these dangerous
weapons.
Some people want to own guns, and some of those guns will get used killing
other people. I guess it's simply human nature to value personal wants more
highly than other people's lives, particularly when they are usually the lives
of people we don't even know.
Having said all that, I doubt that anything is really likely to change. This
isn't the first such massacre in Australia, and it isn't likely to be the last.
As a society, we tend to value our personal rights more highly than we value
other people's lives, and I suspect that our laws will continue to reflect
this.
Disheartened,
Graham
Warwick Allison
addi...@powerup.com.au (Mark Addinall) writes:
[number of guns]
>One each will be just fine.
In the USA, there *IS* `one each'. Off you go.
--
Warwick
--
_-_|\ war...@cs.uq.edu.au Linux: Say `No' to broken windows.
/ * <- Comp Sci Department, McD: http://student.uq.edu.au/~s002434/mcl.html
\_.-._/ Univ. of Queensland, POV: http://student.uq.edu.au/~s002434/pov.html
v Brisbane, Australia. ME: http://student.uq.edu.au/~s002434
Scott Gilbert
Brian (br...@coombs.anu.edu.au) wrote:
: On 30 Apr 1996, Mark Addinall wrote:
:
: > Brian (br...@coombs.anu.edu.au) wrote:
:
:
:
: > : don't. I propose to simply disarm one little corner of it.
: >
: > So it's just your place then? Good.
:
: Yes, its called "Australia".
There are roughly 6 million other people who can also call
"Australia" "My Place". Do we get a say, or are you so much smarter than
the rest of us that your opinion is the only one that counts? Please
remember the response every time punitive gun control measure were an
issue in an election.
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
sha...@sydney.dialix.oz.au |"I am Dworkin of Borg. Men are irrelevant"
Scott Gilbert |
______________________________________________________________________________
Merlin Zener
Chris Maltby wrote:
> [...snip]
> But here's the rub. Why should your supposed "right" to defend yourself
> compromise my actual right to safety?
How would it do this? It's not going to affect your safety one way or the
other. Criminals and psychos will have guns regardless of laws or not,
so how is a law stopping law-abiding people from defending themselves
going to compromise your safety?
--
Merlin Zener phone (+61) (0)18 779 594
Musician, Technician fax (+61) (0)7 5578 5011
Gold Coast, Australia email mer...@ion.com.au
http://www.ion.com.au/~merlin
"research shows that no-one ever went blind from
looking on the bright side of life"
Warwick Allison
addi...@powerup.com.au (Mark Addinall) writes:
>So, we get all the bad guys and the lunatics to hand in
>their firearms. Yep, that'll work.
No, we get the lunatics' neighbours to report them. And they will, for their
own protection.
Merlin Zener
Gareth Bull wrote:
>
> [...snip]
> > I just know that if *I* was to be confronted by some
>
> And if I happen to be in the immediate vicinity of that, *I'd* like to be
> reassured that I'm not going to end up collecting one of *your* bullets in
> *my* body. You have the right to defend yourself, I do not argue with that
> contention in any way. However, you do *NOT* have the right to endanger me
> or anyone else in the process of defending yourself. Now, if you
> can convince me that you can use a gun in a public place in a manner
> that will present no danger to innocent bystanders, I will support
> your argument. When bystanders are getting hit by bullets, does it
> really matter who's gun they come from?
Now, don't get me wrong - I'm not about to condone this sort of thing,
but for what it's worth I'll point out that when those two biker gangs
engaged in a bit of a fire fight in Melbourne a couple of years back
no bystanders got hit. I hasten to add that I agree with you that there
is a chance of a bystander getting hit by someone defending himself, but
I also think that there is a lot LESS chance of being hit by someone
who's not even aiming at you than by some psycho madman who's got you
in his sights and is intent on blowing you away...
Kym Horsell
In article <4m7mpi$q...@grissom.powerup.com.au>,
Mark Addinall <addi...@mail.powerup.com.au> wrote:
>Kym Horsell (khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au) wrote:
>: In article <4m4cvk$7...@grivel.une.edu.au>,
>: David Bromage <dbro...@metz.une.edu.au> wrote:
>
>Fuck this is so funny...
Hey, I got an idea ---
MOVE TO THE USA.
Then you can watch that kind of thing every night on the local news...
--
R. Kym Horsell
KHor...@EE.Latrobe.EDU.AU k...@CS.Binghamton.EDU
http://WWW.EE.LaTrobe.EDU.AU/~khorsell http://CS.Binghamton.EDU/~kym