"**Justice for Martin Bryant....Public Inquiry needed on Prt Arthur**"
jimbo
'trial' should
be a lasting shame to every citizen of this nation who values 'a fair go'
and 'equal justice for all before the law'
Is this what we have now descended to in this country?
Media-controlled show trials? Where did these maggots get their
idea of jurisprudence from? North Korea?!
"in a nation that unjustly gaols its citizens, the only place for a just man
is in gaol"
More here: http://www.webaxs.net/~noel/letters/inquiry.htm.
------------
Cheers Y'all!
(jimbo)
Hunter
jimbo wrote:
> The outrageous travesty of justice that constituted the Martin Bryant
> 'trial' should
> be a lasting shame to every citizen of this nation who values 'a fair go'
> and 'equal justice for all before the law'
> Is this what we have now descended to in this country?
> Media-controlled show trials? Where did these maggots get their
> idea of jurisprudence from? North Korea?!
>
> "in a nation that unjustly gaols its citizens, the only place for a just man
> is in gaol"
Errrr what????
You obviously have never read a transcript of his police interview, I have and
he is one mad fucker.
G
If I was one of them I know *I* would sure like to put a rocket up the ass
of the Aussie gov.
G.
jimbo <jim...@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:38f2...@news.alphalink.com.au...
> The outrageous travesty of justice that constituted the Martin Bryant
> 'trial' should
> be a lasting shame to every citizen of this nation who values 'a fair go'
> and 'equal justice for all before the law'
> Is this what we have now descended to in this country?
> Media-controlled show trials? Where did these maggots get their
> idea of jurisprudence from? North Korea?!
>
> "in a nation that unjustly gaols its citizens, the only place for a just
man
> is in gaol"
>
Michael Simons
wrote:
>The outrageous travesty of justice that constituted the Martin Bryant
>'trial' should
>be a lasting shame to every citizen of this nation who values 'a fair go'
>and 'equal justice for all before the law'
>Is this what we have now descended to in this country?
>Media-controlled show trials? Where did these maggots get their
>idea of jurisprudence from? North Korea?!
>
>"in a nation that unjustly gaols its citizens, the only place for a just man
>is in gaol"
IMO, Bryant got what he deserved.
But, I must admit that I was surprised to see how difficult it was for
Bryant to get representation. I can't comment on the quality of his
representation, but when you look at the high profile "goody goody two
shoes" lawyers who clambered to represent slugs like Milat and other
extremely violent offenders over the years, I wondered what was
different about Bryant.
Where were the lawyers you see on TV whining about rights who
represent the relatives of sporting stars who violently murder their
girlfriends, the lawyers who do everything they can to minimise
sentences imposed on wierdos who admit that they went out a thrill
kill, leaving their elderly victim for dead in the bush, etc etc.
I heard an interview with a pschiatrist a month or so after Port
Arthur on ABC radio. The interviewer called Bryant mentally ill. The
shrink imediately pulled the interviewer up and explained that there
was no way Bryant was mentally ill. IMO, if ever there was a mentally
ill offender Bryant was it. But where were the high profile lawyers to
defend him? Out making up mealy mouthed excuses in court to minimise
the sentences (as opposed to ensuring they get a fair trial) of
rapists, and violent murderers?
Regards
stereotype
wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 19:16:58 +1000, "jimbo" <jim...@mailcity.com>
>wrote:
>
>>The outrageous travesty of justice that constituted the Martin Bryant
>>'trial' should
>>be a lasting shame to every citizen of this nation who values 'a fair go'
>>and 'equal justice for all before the law'
>>Is this what we have now descended to in this country?
>>Media-controlled show trials? Where did these maggots get their
>>idea of jurisprudence from? North Korea?!
>>
>>"in a nation that unjustly gaols its citizens, the only place for a just man
>>is in gaol"
>
>IMO, Bryant got what he deserved.
>
>But, I must admit that I was surprised to see how difficult it was for
>Bryant to get representation. I can't comment on the quality of his
>representation, but when you look at the high profile "goody goody two
>shoes" lawyers who clambered to represent slugs like Milat and other
>extremely violent offenders over the years, I wondered what was
>different about Bryant.
Milat was a serial killer. Bryant was a mass-murderer. Do you know the
difference? Who was the "goody goody two shoes" lawyer that defended
Milat?
>
>Where were the lawyers you see on TV whining about rights who
>represent the relatives of sporting stars who violently murder their
>girlfriends, the lawyers who do everything they can to minimise
>sentences imposed on wierdos who admit that they went out a thrill
>kill, leaving their elderly victim for dead in the bush, etc etc.
Which lawyers are these? Defence lawyers? Oh yeah, those people whom
every person accused of a crime is entitled to? Them? Bastards!!! How
dare they defend someone who hasn't even been found guilty of a crime
yet. What scum!!
>
>I heard an interview with a pschiatrist a month or so after Port
>Arthur on ABC radio. The interviewer called Bryant mentally ill. The
>shrink imediately pulled the interviewer up and explained that there
>was no way Bryant was mentally ill. IMO, if ever there was a mentally
>ill offender Bryant was it.
Insert your psychiatric report here fuckwit. Should be a laugh.
>But where were the high profile lawyers to
>defend him? Out making up mealy mouthed excuses in court to minimise
>the sentences (as opposed to ensuring they get a fair trial) of
>rapists, and violent murderers?
Why did John Lewthwaite murder and rape a young girl? Because he
enjoyed it? <insert your psychiatric report here>.
Brian
>
> The outrageous travesty of justice that constituted the Martin Bryant
> 'trial' should
> be a lasting shame to every citizen of this nation who values 'a fair go'
> and 'equal justice for all before the law'
> Is this what we have now descended to in this country?
> Media-controlled show trials? Where did these maggots get their
> idea of jurisprudence from? North Korea?!
>
> "in a nation that unjustly gaols its citizens, the only place for a just man
> is in gaol"
I take it then you're against mandatory sentencing for minor property
crimes then?
--
"The problem of our half-castes will quickly be eliminated by the
complete disappearance of the black race and the swift submergence of
their progeny in the white." - Dr. Cecil Cook,
Northern Territory's Chief Protector of Aborigines (1927-1939)
Michael Simons
wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 22:41:10 GMT, ve...@world.net (Michael Simons)
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 19:16:58 +1000, "jimbo" <jim...@mailcity.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>The outrageous travesty of justice that constituted the Martin Bryant
>>>'trial' should
>>>be a lasting shame to every citizen of this nation who values 'a fair go'
>>>and 'equal justice for all before the law'
>>>Is this what we have now descended to in this country?
>>>Media-controlled show trials? Where did these maggots get their
>>>idea of jurisprudence from? North Korea?!
>>>
>>>"in a nation that unjustly gaols its citizens, the only place for a just man
>>>is in gaol"
>>
>>IMO, Bryant got what he deserved.
>>
>>But, I must admit that I was surprised to see how difficult it was for
>>Bryant to get representation. I can't comment on the quality of his
>>representation, but when you look at the high profile "goody goody two
>>shoes" lawyers who clambered to represent slugs like Milat and other
>>extremely violent offenders over the years, I wondered what was
>>different about Bryant.
>
>Milat was a serial killer. Bryant was a mass-murderer. Do you know the
>difference? Who was the "goody goody two shoes" lawyer that defended
>Milat?
Boe at first. Tried every trick to get him off.
Who cares about a difference? Both deserve to be taken out of public
circulation permanently in the interest of public safety.
>
>>
>>Where were the lawyers you see on TV whining about rights who
>>represent the relatives of sporting stars who violently murder their
>>girlfriends, the lawyers who do everything they can to minimise
>>sentences imposed on wierdos who admit that they went out a thrill
>>kill, leaving their elderly victim for dead in the bush, etc etc.
>
>Which lawyers are these? Defence lawyers? Oh yeah, those people whom
>every person accused of a crime is entitled to? Them? Bastards!!! How
>dare they defend someone who hasn't even been found guilty of a crime
>yet. What scum!!
When a lawyer uses the excuse "my client was high on a coctail of
alcohol and marijuana, you must show leniancy", they are scum -
especially when his client raped his ex girlfriend, bashed her over
the head, shoved a fence post between her legs, and left her to bleed
to death.
By all means, ensure they get a fair trial, but I do not know how
these people sleep at night after using every trick to minimise the
sentences of oxygen thieves like this.
>>
>>I heard an interview with a pschiatrist a month or so after Port
>>Arthur on ABC radio. The interviewer called Bryant mentally ill. The
>>shrink imediately pulled the interviewer up and explained that there
>>was no way Bryant was mentally ill. IMO, if ever there was a mentally
>>ill offender Bryant was it.
>
>Insert your psychiatric report here fuckwit. Should be a laugh.
What is your assesment? Were his actions those of a sane person?
>
>>But where were the high profile lawyers to
>>defend him? Out making up mealy mouthed excuses in court to minimise
>>the sentences (as opposed to ensuring they get a fair trial) of
>>rapists, and violent murderers?
>
>Why did John Lewthwaite murder and rape a young girl? Because he
>enjoyed it? <insert your psychiatric report here>.
Who cares why he did it. He did do it.
Regards
ant
Hunter wrote in message <38F1D868...@vianet.net.au>...
>
>
>jimbo wrote:
>
>> The outrageous travesty of justice that constituted the Martin Bryant
>> 'trial' should
>> be a lasting shame to every citizen of this nation who values 'a fair
go'
>> and 'equal justice for all before the law'
>> Is this what we have now descended to in this country?
>> Media-controlled show trials? Where did these maggots get their
>> idea of jurisprudence from? North Korea?!
>>
>> "in a nation that unjustly gaols its citizens, the only place for a just
man
>> is in gaol"
>
>
>You obviously have never read a transcript of his police interview, I have
and
>he is one mad fucker.
>
>
his ego pump(guns) and he is a typical insecure male who projects his fears
and self loathing onto others, expecting everybody to have as little
respect for other people and their opinions as he has. this port arthur
conspiracy theory he keeps regurgitating is so funny and damages his
credibility to the point of him being nothing more then a joke, and
candidate for net kook of the year(pity the awards have been suspended due
to the overwhelming wealth of candidates to chose from)
ant
stereotype
wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 23:05:40 GMT, stereotype <stere...@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 22:41:10 GMT, ve...@world.net (Michael Simons)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 19:16:58 +1000, "jimbo" <jim...@mailcity.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>The outrageous travesty of justice that constituted the Martin Bryant
>>>>'trial' should
>>>>be a lasting shame to every citizen of this nation who values 'a fair go'
>>>>and 'equal justice for all before the law'
>>>>Is this what we have now descended to in this country?
>>>>Media-controlled show trials? Where did these maggots get their
>>>>idea of jurisprudence from? North Korea?!
>>>>
>>>>"in a nation that unjustly gaols its citizens, the only place for a just man
>>>>is in gaol"
>>>
>>>IMO, Bryant got what he deserved.
>>>
>>>But, I must admit that I was surprised to see how difficult it was for
>>>Bryant to get representation. I can't comment on the quality of his
>>>representation, but when you look at the high profile "goody goody two
>>>shoes" lawyers who clambered to represent slugs like Milat and other
>>>extremely violent offenders over the years, I wondered what was
>>>different about Bryant.
>>
>>Milat was a serial killer. Bryant was a mass-murderer. Do you know the
>>difference? Who was the "goody goody two shoes" lawyer that defended
>>Milat?
>
>Boe at first. Tried every trick to get him off.
>
>Who cares about a difference? Both deserve to be taken out of public
>circulation permanently in the interest of public safety.
Mass-murderers are usually morons, low intelligence and low emotional
intelligence. Serial Killers are usually relatively intelligent.
Bryant is a moron, or should I be more professional and say mentally
impoverished? He has the IQ of an 11-year old but the emotional
intelligence of a 2-year. It's not that surprising he found it hard to
get representation and had to have someone appointed by the judge.
Hobart is a small town, everyone either knew one of the people
murdered, or knew someone who knew someone who was murdered.
Milat on the other hand is a reasonably intelligent (otherwise it
wouldn't have taken so long to catch him) psycopath from Sydney, at
least 10 times the size of Hobart, crimes like these happen regularly
in big cities. Defending him is not likely to destroy a lawyer's
career. Not only that, it wasn't certain that Milat was guilty until
we heard the evidence. The difference between mass-murder and serial
killing. Moron Bryant was caught in the act, Intelligent Milat was
caught after years of police work.
>>>Where were the lawyers you see on TV whining about rights who
>>>represent the relatives of sporting stars who violently murder their
>>>girlfriends, the lawyers who do everything they can to minimise
>>>sentences imposed on wierdos who admit that they went out a thrill
>>>kill, leaving their elderly victim for dead in the bush, etc etc.
>>
>>Which lawyers are these? Defence lawyers? Oh yeah, those people whom
>>every person accused of a crime is entitled to? Them? Bastards!!! How
>>dare they defend someone who hasn't even been found guilty of a crime
>>yet. What scum!!
>
>
>When a lawyer uses the excuse "my client was high on a coctail of
>alcohol and marijuana, you must show leniancy", they are scum -
>especially when his client raped his ex girlfriend, bashed her over
>the head, shoved a fence post between her legs, and left her to bleed
>to death.
>
>By all means, ensure they get a fair trial, but I do not know how
>these people sleep at night after using every trick to minimise the
>sentences of oxygen thieves like this.
Everyone deserves the right to a defence. Even Bryant and Milat. If
nobody will do it, the judge appoints someone. That person is then
bound to provide the best possible defence.
>>>I heard an interview with a pschiatrist a month or so after Port
>>>Arthur on ABC radio. The interviewer called Bryant mentally ill. The
>>>shrink imediately pulled the interviewer up and explained that there
>>>was no way Bryant was mentally ill. IMO, if ever there was a mentally
>>>ill offender Bryant was it.
>>
>>Insert your psychiatric report here fuckwit. Should be a laugh.
>
>What is your assesment? Were his actions those of a sane person?
Bryant hasn't been found insane, but that doesn't mean he's sane by
any means. He's not normal is probably more accurate. But without a
gun Bryant is nothing. He's a gutless piece of shit. Milat on the
other hand is psychologically dangerous. Without a gun he'd still kill
anyway he could. Martin Bryant's little brain "snapped", Milat's
calculating brain wouldn't have ever allowed him to stop killing.
>>
>>>But where were the high profile lawyers to
>>>defend him? Out making up mealy mouthed excuses in court to minimise
>>>the sentences (as opposed to ensuring they get a fair trial) of
>>>rapists, and violent murderers?
>>
>>Why did John Lewthwaite murder and rape a young girl? Because he
>>enjoyed it? <insert your psychiatric report here>.
>
>Who cares why he did it. He did do it.
And he admits it. He also said why he did it. He was homosexual and
couldn't deal with it. Why is that do you think? Because society told
him from the day he was born that homosexuals are freaks and perverts?
So he gets to the age of 19, sexually charged, and he doesn't know who
he is. So, he tries to prove to himself that he's heterosexual by
raping a young girl (he didn't mean to kill her at first, but did in
the end after he realised he would be recognised). Do you think
society is partly to blame for his crimes (even though nobody forced
him to do it)? I do. Sure, 99.99% of people in similar situations
wouldn't do the same thing, but how can you know for sure what's going
on inside his head? One thing is for sure. If the whole society comes
to terms with the fact that homosexuality is normal and people do not
have a choice, these crimes will happen a lot less often.
G
Michael Simons <ve...@world.net> wrote in message
news:38f2556d...@news.ozemail.com.au...
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 19:16:58 +1000, "jimbo" <jim...@mailcity.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The outrageous travesty of justice that constituted the Martin Bryant
> >'trial' should
> >be a lasting shame to every citizen of this nation who values 'a fair go'
> >and 'equal justice for all before the law'
> >Is this what we have now descended to in this country?
> >Media-controlled show trials? Where did these maggots get their
> >idea of jurisprudence from? North Korea?!
> >
> >"in a nation that unjustly gaols its citizens, the only place for a just
man
> >is in gaol"
>
> IMO, Bryant got what he deserved.
>
> But, I must admit that I was surprised to see how difficult it was for
> Bryant to get representation. I can't comment on the quality of his
> representation, but when you look at the high profile "goody goody two
> shoes" lawyers who clambered to represent slugs like Milat and other
> extremely violent offenders over the years, I wondered what was
> different about Bryant.
>
> represent the relatives of sporting stars who violently murder their
> girlfriends, the lawyers who do everything they can to minimise
> sentences imposed on wierdos who admit that they went out a thrill
> kill, leaving their elderly victim for dead in the bush, etc etc.
>
> Arthur on ABC radio. The interviewer called Bryant mentally ill. The
> shrink imediately pulled the interviewer up and explained that there
> was no way Bryant was mentally ill. IMO, if ever there was a mentally
> defend him? Out making up mealy mouthed excuses in court to minimise
> the sentences (as opposed to ensuring they get a fair trial) of
> rapists, and violent murderers?
>
Why don't you find out exactly what Bryant could have and NOT have done in
the port Arthur shooting?
Read the whole story at:
I have never even HEARD of someone getting the kill to wounded ratios that
"Bryant" supposedly did.
I think you'll find that after looking at the evnts, instead of the hype, it
is quite clear that Bryant had little to do with the death of 35 individuals
at Port Arthur.
You might as well say that Lee Harvey Oswald really did shoot JFK. No one
with a functioning brain and even minimal knowledge of ballistics and rifle
shooting believes that. In Bryant's case it's far more obvious than the JFK
shooting.
It's easy to say the guy deserves to be in jail, but how much do you
actually KNOW of what happened at Port Arthur? Why not educate yourself
about a few things before passing judgement? If you do read all the stuff
Vialls has written on his site about port Arthur and STILL reckon Bryant is
guilty let me know. Seriously, I'd like to hear how and why you think so.
Regards,
G.
stereotype
wrote:
snip
>It's easy to say the guy deserves to be in jail, but how much do you
>actually KNOW of what happened at Port Arthur? Why not educate yourself
>about a few things before passing judgement? If you do read all the stuff
>Vialls has written on his site about port Arthur and STILL reckon Bryant is
>guilty let me know. Seriously, I'd like to hear how and why you think so.
>Regards,
>G.
Seriously, you need to seek help.
jimbo
>jimbo wrote:
>> The outrageous travesty of justice that constituted the Martin Bryant
>> 'trial' should
>> be a lasting shame to every citizen of this nation who values 'a fair go'
>> and 'equal justice for all before the law'
>> Is this what we have now descended to in this country?
>> Media-controlled show trials? Where did these maggots get their
>> idea of jurisprudence from? North Korea?!
>>
>> "in a nation that unjustly gaols its citizens, the only place for a just
man
>> is in gaol"
>
>Errrr what????
>You obviously have never read a transcript of his police interview, I have
and
>he is one mad fucker.
I'v read the 'transcript' Perhaps u'd care to point out exactly where he
_admitted_
to being the Prt Arthur gunman?
Transcript available here:
http://www.overflow.net.au/~nedwood/transcript.html.
jimbo
>
>Hunter wrote in message <38F1D868...@vianet.net.au>...
>>
>>
>>jimbo wrote:
>>
>>> The outrageous travesty of justice that constituted the Martin Bryant
>>> 'trial' should
>>> be a lasting shame to every citizen of this nation who values 'a fair
>go'
>>> and 'equal justice for all before the law'
>>> Is this what we have now descended to in this country?
>>> Media-controlled show trials? Where did these maggots get their
>>> idea of jurisprudence from? North Korea?!
>>>
>>> "in a nation that unjustly gaols its citizens, the only place for a just
>man
>>> is in gaol"
>>
>>Errrr what????
>>
>>You obviously have never read a transcript of his police interview, I have
>and
>>he is one mad fucker.
>>
>>
>his ego pump(guns) and he is a typical insecure male who projects his fears
>and self loathing onto others, expecting everybody to have as little
>respect for other people and their opinions as he has.
U politically correct nincompoops are the ones who don't respect
other peoples' opinions(excpt yr own, of course) The demonisation of
gun owners and shooters by the politically correct thugs of the Oz media
mafia
is proof enough of that!
>this port arthur conspiracy theory he keeps regurgitating is so funny and
damages his
>credibility to the point of him being nothing more then a joke, and
>candidate for net kook of the year(pity the awards have been suspended due
>to the overwhelming wealth of candidates to chose from)
I see. Perhaps you'd care to point out the flaws with Mr Vialls claims?
http://www.overflow.net.au/~nedwood/portarthur.html.
jimbo
>>
>>>The outrageous travesty of justice that constituted the Martin Bryant
>>>'trial' should
>>>be a lasting shame to every citizen of this nation who values 'a fair go'
>>>and 'equal justice for all before the law'
>>>Is this what we have now descended to in this country?
>>>Media-controlled show trials? Where did these maggots get their
>>>idea of jurisprudence from? North Korea?!
>>>
>>>"in a nation that unjustly gaols its citizens, the only place for a just
man
>>>is in gaol"
>>
>>
>>But, I must admit that I was surprised to see how difficult it was for
>>Bryant to get representation. I can't comment on the quality of his
>>representation, but when you look at the high profile "goody goody two
>>shoes" lawyers who clambered to represent slugs like Milat and other
>>extremely violent offenders over the years, I wondered what was
>>different about Bryant.
>
>difference? Who was the "goody goody two shoes" lawyer that defended
>Milat?
He had several. The point is: he _was_ defended and had a proper trial by
jury.
Unlike Bryant. Why? Simply this: the guvmint and their NWO-master didn't
want the truth about Prt Arthur emeging!
>>Where were the lawyers you see on TV whining about rights who
>>represent the relatives of sporting stars who violently murder their
>>girlfriends, the lawyers who do everything they can to minimise
>>sentences imposed on wierdos who admit that they went out a thrill
>>kill, leaving their elderly victim for dead in the bush, etc etc.
>
>Which lawyers are these? Defence lawyers? Oh yeah, those people whom
>every person accused of a crime is entitled to? Them? Bastards!!! How
>dare they defend someone who hasn't even been found guilty of a crime
>yet. What scum!!
And who defended Bryant? The lawyer appointed to defend _him_ was a
sick joke. A worthless, gutless, fuckwit par excellence.
The point being made is: if Bryant had to have originated from a
more politically correct group(letz just say a 'minority' group) and hadn't
been charged with a politically incorrect offence(one involving the use of
guns),
then the politically correct scumbags in both the media and the legal
profession would be tripping over each other to defend him!
>>I heard an interview with a pschiatrist a month or so after Port
>>Arthur on ABC radio. The interviewer called Bryant mentally ill. The
>>shrink imediately pulled the interviewer up and explained that there
>>was no way Bryant was mentally ill. IMO, if ever there was a mentally
>>ill offender Bryant was it.
>Insert your psychiatric report here fuckwit. Should be a laugh.
Psychiatry itself is the _laugh_ U had two shrinks giving contradictory
accounts of Bryant's illness. However, the fact remains that Bryant _was_
under a guardianship order and his fitness to plead should have been
examined at length. The whole thing smells of a size 50 RAT!
>>But where were the high profile lawyers to
>>defend him? Out making up mealy mouthed excuses in court to minimise
>>the sentences (as opposed to ensuring they get a fair trial) of
>>rapists, and violent murderers?
>Why did John Lewthwaite murder and rape a young girl? Because he
>enjoyed it? <insert your psychiatric report here>.
Get one done on yr-self, u politically correct SCHMUCK!
jimbo
And this proves.....?
>Bryant is a moron, or should I be more professional and say mentally
>impoverished? He has the IQ of an 11-year old but the emotional
>intelligence of a 2-year. It's not that surprising he found it hard to
>get representation and had to have someone appointed by the judge.
>Hobart is a small town, everyone either knew one of the people
>murdered, or knew someone who knew someone who was murdered.
so wot? Haven't lawyers taken an oath to defend the innocent?
To defend their clients? Wotz that worth then? A cunt-full of cold water?!
BTW: ever heard of lawyers being flown in from out-of-state. I know
several from the Owen Dixon Chambers in Mlbr who regularly defend
out-of-state cases.
>Milat on the other hand is a reasonably intelligent (otherwise it
>wouldn't have taken so long to catch him) psycopath from Sydney, at
>least 10 times the size of Hobart, crimes like these happen regularly
>in big cities. Defending him is not likely to destroy a lawyer's
>career. Not only that, it wasn't certain that Milat was guilty until
>we heard the evidence. The difference between mass-murder and serial
>killing. Moron Bryant was caught in the act, Intelligent Milat was
>caught after years of police work.
Bryant _wasn't_ caught _IN_THE_ACT_ because he wasn't the
perpertrator(s)....http://www.overflow.net.au/~nedwood/portarthur.html.
He wasn't even caught _at_the_scene_, but some considerable distance
from it!
>>>>Where were the lawyers you see on TV whining about rights who
>>>>represent the relatives of sporting stars who violently murder their
>>>>girlfriends, the lawyers who do everything they can to minimise
>>>>sentences imposed on wierdos who admit that they went out a thrill
>>>>kill, leaving their elderly victim for dead in the bush, etc etc.
>>>
>>>Which lawyers are these? Defence lawyers? Oh yeah, those people whom
>>>every person accused of a crime is entitled to? Them? Bastards!!! How
>>>dare they defend someone who hasn't even been found guilty of a crime
>>>yet. What scum!!
>>
>>
>>When a lawyer uses the excuse "my client was high on a coctail of
>>alcohol and marijuana, you must show leniancy", they are scum -
>>especially when his client raped his ex girlfriend, bashed her over
>>the head, shoved a fence post between her legs, and left her to bleed
>>to death.
>>
>>By all means, ensure they get a fair trial, but I do not know how
>>these people sleep at night after using every trick to minimise the
>>sentences of oxygen thieves like this.
>
>Everyone deserves the right to a defence. Even Bryant and Milat. If
>nobody will do it, the judge appoints someone. That person is then
>bound to provide the best possible defence.
Really? Then why wasn't this done in Bryant's case?
The lawyer 'defending' him was a worthless ARSEHOLE!
>>>>I heard an interview with a pschiatrist a month or so after Port
>>>>Arthur on ABC radio. The interviewer called Bryant mentally ill. The
>>>>shrink imediately pulled the interviewer up and explained that there
>>>>was no way Bryant was mentally ill. IMO, if ever there was a mentally
>>>>ill offender Bryant was it.
>>>
>>>Insert your psychiatric report here fuckwit. Should be a laugh.
>>
>>What is your assesment? Were his actions those of a sane person?
>
>Bryant hasn't been found insane, but that doesn't mean he's sane by
>any means. He's not normal is probably more accurate. But without a
>gun Bryant is nothing.
He's either sane or insane. No bullshit! OTW, psychiatry isn't worth
a crock of shit!
>He's a gutless piece of shit.
A self analysis? Or a good description of the despicable maggots who
constitute the politically correct Oz media mafia?
>Milat on the other hand is psychologically dangerous. Without a gun he'd
still kill
>anyway he could. Martin Bryant's little brain "snapped", Milat's
>calculating brain wouldn't have ever allowed him to stop killing.
Ho hum!
>>>
>>>>But where were the high profile lawyers to
>>>>defend him? Out making up mealy mouthed excuses in court to minimise
>>>>the sentences (as opposed to ensuring they get a fair trial) of
>>>>rapists, and violent murderers?
>>>
>>>Why did John Lewthwaite murder and rape a young girl? Because he
>>>enjoyed it? <insert your psychiatric report here>.
>>
>>Who cares why he did it. He did do it.
>
>And he admits it. He also said why he did it. He was homosexual and
>couldn't deal with it. Why is that do you think? Because society told
>him from the day he was born that homosexuals are freaks and perverts?
>So he gets to the age of 19, sexually charged, and he doesn't know who
>he is. So, he tries to prove to himself that he's heterosexual by
>raping a young girl (he didn't mean to kill her at first, but did in
>the end after he realised he would be recognised). Do you think
>society is partly to blame for his crimes (even though nobody forced
>him to do it)? I do. Sure, 99.99% of people in similar situations
>wouldn't do the same thing, but how can you know for sure what's going
>on inside his head? One thing is for sure.
>If the whole society comes
>to terms with the fact that homosexuality is normal and people do not
>have a choice, these crimes will happen a lot less often.
Ohhhh...here we go! No wonder yr part of the anti-gun loon crowd!
Then again, being a card-carrying FAG is almost a pre-requisite
for membership ain't it?
U rckn FAGs are normal? Think AGAIN, Bucko!
http://members.yoderanium.com/aidscuresfags/main.html.
jimbo
And yr beyond help......
Do everyone a favour and..........!!
jimbo
>jimbo wrote:
>>
>> The outrageous travesty of justice that constituted the Martin Bryant
>> 'trial' should
>> be a lasting shame to every citizen of this nation who values 'a fair go'
>> and 'equal justice for all before the law'
>> Is this what we have now descended to in this country?
>> Media-controlled show trials? Where did these maggots get their
>> idea of jurisprudence from? North Korea?!
>>
>> "in a nation that unjustly gaols its citizens, the only place for a just
man
>> is in gaol"
>
>crimes then?
If we didn't have the Gun Grab, we wouldn't _need_ mandatory sentencing!
The burglars could be BLOWN AWAY as soon as they came through the
roof/window/door/whatever!
Chris G
jimbo wrote in message <38f3...@news.alphalink.com.au>...
>>Why did John Lewthwaite murder and rape a young girl? Because he
>>enjoyed it? <insert your psychiatric report here>.
>
>Get one done on yr-self, u politically correct SCHMUCK!
Jimbo, you make other gun owners look bad with this bullshit. Maybe you're
part of the anti-gun lobby, trying to ridicule and further inflame the bad
stereotype us gun people get. If so, good job.
Chris
Chris G
Unless the burglar is armed, shooting to kill is completely irresponsible.
Shooting to maim is fine, but killing someone if they appear to be merely
stealing is pretty stupid. If they have a bat/gun/knife, it means they're
ready to use it on someone, so by all means, unload on them.
Michael Simons
wrote:
And that is my point. We had an obvious mental case in Bryant, yet no
body would defend him. Yet we have people like Milat (and others)
where high profile lawyers will do every thing they can to "defend"
them. If they can get an obviously guilty person off, all the better.
Is that what defence means? Getting guilty people off? Or ensuring
that they receive a fair trial where an appropriate punishment is
dealt out.
>>>>Where were the lawyers you see on TV whining about rights who
>>>>represent the relatives of sporting stars who violently murder their
>>>>girlfriends, the lawyers who do everything they can to minimise
>>>>sentences imposed on wierdos who admit that they went out a thrill
>>>>kill, leaving their elderly victim for dead in the bush, etc etc.
>>>
>>>Which lawyers are these? Defence lawyers? Oh yeah, those people whom
>>>every person accused of a crime is entitled to? Them? Bastards!!! How
>>>dare they defend someone who hasn't even been found guilty of a crime
>>>yet. What scum!!
>>
>>
>>When a lawyer uses the excuse "my client was high on a coctail of
>>alcohol and marijuana, you must show leniancy", they are scum -
>>especially when his client raped his ex girlfriend, bashed her over
>>the head, shoved a fence post between her legs, and left her to bleed
>>to death.
>>
>>By all means, ensure they get a fair trial, but I do not know how
>>these people sleep at night after using every trick to minimise the
>>sentences of oxygen thieves like this.
>
>Everyone deserves the right to a defence. Even Bryant and Milat. If
>nobody will do it, the judge appoints someone. That person is then
>bound to provide the best possible defence.
Of course everyone is entitled to a fair trial. But does this mean
that if a lawyer can get a guilty person off on a technicality they
should go for it?
I'm not naive enougn to think that the world doesn't work by people
exploiting technicalities. It's just that when $200,000 pa lawyers
stand there and get scum life like this off, or minimise their
sentences because some cop didn't cross every "T" , or the prosecution
is too dumb or too cash strapped to counter some dubious jargen laiden
technical expert that the jury and judge can't even understand, I get
pretty frustrated with the legal profession.
Like I said, how do these people sleep at night? Why do they devote
their careers to defending this type of person? Aren't there enough
decent people in need of their help?
>>>>I heard an interview with a pschiatrist a month or so after Port
>>>>Arthur on ABC radio. The interviewer called Bryant mentally ill. The
>>>>shrink imediately pulled the interviewer up and explained that there
>>>>was no way Bryant was mentally ill. IMO, if ever there was a mentally
>>>>ill offender Bryant was it.
>>>
>>>Insert your psychiatric report here fuckwit. Should be a laugh.
>>
>>What is your assesment? Were his actions those of a sane person?
>
>Bryant hasn't been found insane, but that doesn't mean he's sane by
>any means. He's not normal is probably more accurate. But without a
>gun Bryant is nothing. He's a gutless piece of shit. Milat on the
>other hand is psychologically dangerous. Without a gun he'd still kill
>anyway he could. Martin Bryant's little brain "snapped", Milat's
>calculating brain wouldn't have ever allowed him to stop killing.
IOW, Bryant may or may not offend again, yet he had dubious defence
and probably will never be released while we have lawyers still
willing to attempt to get Milat out if they can. Yet, given your
assesment, Milat is far more likely to reoffend than Bryant.
>>>
>>>>But where were the high profile lawyers to
>>>>defend him? Out making up mealy mouthed excuses in court to minimise
>>>>the sentences (as opposed to ensuring they get a fair trial) of
>>>>rapists, and violent murderers?
>>>
>>>Why did John Lewthwaite murder and rape a young girl? Because he
>>>enjoyed it? <insert your psychiatric report here>.
>>
>>Who cares why he did it. He did do it.
>
>And he admits it. He also said why he did it. He was homosexual and
>couldn't deal with it. Why is that do you think?
Sounds like words put to him by a clever defence lawyer to me.
>Because society told
>him from the day he was born that homosexuals are freaks and perverts?
Yep, it's all societies fault. Funny how there are about 19,000,000
other members of this little society who don't react that way.
>So he gets to the age of 19, sexually charged, and he doesn't know who
>he is. So, he tries to prove to himself that he's heterosexual by
>raping a young girl (he didn't mean to kill her at first, but did in
>the end after he realised he would be recognised).
Yes. A real vicim of circumstances he was. In fact it's the little
girls fault that she died. If only she hadn't called him by his name -
she'd probably still be alive today.
>Do you think
>society is partly to blame for his crimes (even though nobody forced
>him to do it)? I do.
No.
>Sure, 99.99% of people in similar situations
>wouldn't do the same thing, but how can you know for sure what's going
>on inside his head? One thing is for sure. If the whole society comes
>to terms with the fact that homosexuality is normal and people do not
>have a choice, these crimes will happen a lot less often.
Funny. All the homosexuals I know claim that it is 100% choice. If you
dared suggest to them that were born that way, that society made them
way, or suggest anything other than they are living by their own
choices, they'd knock your block off.
Regards
Sean
stereotype wrote in message <0e45fs4vvindgkeh0...@4ax.com>...
--snip--
>>Who cares why he did it. He did do it.
>
>And he admits it. He also said why he did it. He was homosexual and
>couldn't deal with it. Why is that do you think? Because society told
>him from the day he was born that homosexuals are freaks and perverts?
>So he gets to the age of 19, sexually charged, and he doesn't know who
>he is. So, he tries to prove to himself that he's heterosexual by
>raping a young girl (he didn't mean to kill her at first, but did in
>the end after he realised he would be recognised). Do you think
>society is partly to blame for his crimes (even though nobody forced
>him to do it)? I do. Sure, 99.99% of people in similar situations
>wouldn't do the same thing, but how can you know for sure what's going
>on inside his head? One thing is for sure. If the whole society comes
>to terms with the fact that homosexuality is normal and people do not
>have a choice, these crimes will happen a lot less often.
Surely a lot less homosexuals would do the trick also?
Floyd.
> I'v read the 'transcript' Perhaps u'd care to point out exactly where he
> _admitted_
> to being the Prt Arthur gunman?
Of course, everyone who commits any crime, always admits to it - which is
why guns should be allowed everywhere.....
Keep both feet in your mouth and add some salt.
Lisa Hardy
jimbo <jim...@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:38f3...@news.alphalink.com.au...
> Brian wrote in message <38F2661B...@apex.net.au>...
> >jimbo wrote:
> >>
> >> The outrageous travesty of justice that constituted the Martin Bryant
> >> 'trial' should
> >> be a lasting shame to every citizen of this nation who values 'a fair
go'
> >> and 'equal justice for all before the law'
> >> Is this what we have now descended to in this country?
> >> Media-controlled show trials? Where did these maggots get their
> >> idea of jurisprudence from? North Korea?!
> >>
> >> "in a nation that unjustly gaols its citizens, the only place for a
just
> man
> >> is in gaol"
> >
> >I take it then you're against mandatory sentencing for minor property
> >crimes then?
>
> If we didn't have the Gun Grab, we wouldn't _need_ mandatory sentencing!
> The burglars could be BLOWN AWAY as soon as they came through the
> roof/window/door/whatever!
>
Blown away by what? most if not all burglaries occur when nobody is home you
goose.
"Trust me, I know about these things" - HST
Jata
wrote:
>And he admits it. He also said why he did it. He was homosexual and
>couldn't deal with it. Why is that do you think? Because society told
>him from the day he was born that homosexuals are freaks and perverts?
>So he gets to the age of 19, sexually charged, and he doesn't know who
>he is. So, he tries to prove to himself that he's heterosexual by
>raping a young girl (he didn't mean to kill her at first, but did in
>the end after he realised he would be recognised). Do you think
>society is partly to blame for his crimes (even though nobody forced
>him to do it)? I do. Sure, 99.99% of people in similar situations
>wouldn't do the same thing, but how can you know for sure what's going
>on inside his head? One thing is for sure. If the whole society comes
>to terms with the fact that homosexuality is normal and people do not
>have a choice, these crimes will happen a lot less often.
True. Only problem is homosexuality is not normal. Sort of puts a
spanner in the works, doesn't it?
jimbo
>> _admitted_
>> to being the Prt Arthur gunman?
>
>Of course, everyone who commits any crime, always admits to it - which is
>why guns should be allowed everywhere.....
>
>Keep both feet in your mouth and add some salt.
Bryant was a mental defective. Why wouldn't he admit it?
Also: we see no convincing evidence put to Bryant by the police that
would establish his guilt......
jimbo
>>>enjoyed it? <insert your psychiatric report here>.
>>
>
>Jimbo, you make other gun owners look bad with this bullshit. Maybe you're
>part of the anti-gun lobby, trying to ridicule and further inflame the bad
>stereotype us gun people get. If so, good job.
For a start: I'm _not_ a 'gun owner'. The Gun Grab has seen to that!
For seconds, gun owners couldn't look any worse than they've been
portrayed in the media.
Wake up to yr-self! Itz time to fight back and
start _hurting_ these pricks through venues like the Internet,
company/sponsor boycotts(worked with Neil Mitchell....3AW!) and letters to
editors
(preferably: local/regional newspapers...more likely to be published than
mainstream metro' `papers!)
If u _are_ a gun-owner, u'd better face the cold realities of the situation:
u ain't gunna get yr guns back by being nice to the anti-gun loons!
jimbo
>
>jimbo wrote in message <38f3...@news.alphalink.com.au>...
>>>jimbo wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The outrageous travesty of justice that constituted the Martin Bryant
>>>> 'trial' should
>>>> be a lasting shame to every citizen of this nation who values 'a fair
>go'
>>>> and 'equal justice for all before the law'
>>>> Is this what we have now descended to in this country?
>>>> Media-controlled show trials? Where did these maggots get their
>>>> idea of jurisprudence from? North Korea?!
>>>>
>>>> "in a nation that unjustly gaols its citizens, the only place for a
just
>>man
>>>> is in gaol"
>>>
>>>I take it then you're against mandatory sentencing for minor property
>>>crimes then?
>>
>>If we didn't have the Gun Grab, we wouldn't _need_ mandatory sentencing!
>>The burglars could be BLOWN AWAY as soon as they came through the
>>roof/window/door/whatever!
>
>Shooting to maim is fine, but killing someone if they appear to be merely
>stealing is pretty stupid. If they have a bat/gun/knife, it means they're
>ready to use it on someone, so by all means, unload on them.
Rubbish! By the time u find out whether or not the schmuck is armed
(ever heard of a 'concealed weapon'?) itz gunna be too late...at least,
too late for _u_. Shoot first, ask questions afterwards......if the prick is
wandering
around yr house at 3a.m., itz a fair bet he hasn't come over to borrow a cup
of sugar or have a drink of water out of the faucet in yr yard! No
reasonable jury
would convict in such a scenario!.....yr only trouble is going to be all the
legal fuss and
bother(and the attendant costs...viz: the Laurie Morris case!) and the
pssblty of
being bank-rupted!
jimbo
>--
>> >jimbo wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The outrageous travesty of justice that constituted the Martin Bryant
>> >> 'trial' should
>> >> be a lasting shame to every citizen of this nation who values 'a fair
>go'
>> >> and 'equal justice for all before the law'
>> >> Is this what we have now descended to in this country?
>> >> Media-controlled show trials? Where did these maggots get their
>> >> idea of jurisprudence from? North Korea?!
>> >>
>> >> "in a nation that unjustly gaols its citizens, the only place for a
>just
>> man
>> >> is in gaol"
>> >
>> >I take it then you're against mandatory sentencing for minor property
>> >crimes then?
>>
>> If we didn't have the Gun Grab, we wouldn't _need_ mandatory sentencing!
>> The burglars could be BLOWN AWAY as soon as they came through the
>> roof/window/door/whatever!
>>
you
>goose.
Not any more! These days, the crims are much bolder and brazener....crimes
classed as 'burglaries' include those cases where the house-holder is home!
Blame the Gun Grab!
Chris G
jimbo wrote in message <38f3...@news.alphalink.com.au>...
>Chris G wrote in message <38f2...@news.iprimus.com.au>...
>>
>>jimbo wrote in message <38f3...@news.alphalink.com.au>...
>>>>jimbo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The outrageous travesty of justice that constituted the Martin Bryant
>>>>> 'trial' should
>>>>> be a lasting shame to every citizen of this nation who values 'a fair
>>go'
>>>>> and 'equal justice for all before the law'
>>>>> Is this what we have now descended to in this country?
>>>>> Media-controlled show trials? Where did these maggots get their
>>>>> idea of jurisprudence from? North Korea?!
>>>>>
>>>>> "in a nation that unjustly gaols its citizens, the only place for a
>just
>>>man
>>>>> is in gaol"
>>>>
>>>>I take it then you're against mandatory sentencing for minor property
>>>>crimes then?
>>>
>>>If we didn't have the Gun Grab, we wouldn't _need_ mandatory sentencing!
>>>The burglars could be BLOWN AWAY as soon as they came through the
>>>roof/window/door/whatever!
>>
>>Shooting to maim is fine, but killing someone if they appear to be merely
>>stealing is pretty stupid. If they have a bat/gun/knife, it means they're
>>ready to use it on someone, so by all means, unload on them.
>
>Rubbish! By the time u find out whether or not the schmuck is armed
>(ever heard of a 'concealed weapon'?) itz gunna be too late...at least,
>too late for _u_.
If you have a gun trained at a perp, you give them warning and you give them
orders of what to do. If you don't feel up to this, take a course. Courses
are good for at least giving you some methods for dealing with high
stress/danger situations. If they do not stop or keep their hands where you
can see them, and you believe they are going for a weapon, then I guess you
have no choice. But shooting an unarmed perp is unnecessary.
> Shoot first, ask questions afterwards......if the prick is
>wandering
>around yr house at 3a.m., itz a fair bet he hasn't come over to borrow a
cup
>of sugar or have a drink of water out of the faucet in yr yard!
No, but he might be trying to flog your gear without confrontation.
No
>reasonable jury
>would convict in such a scenario!.....yr only trouble is going to be all
the
>legal fuss and
>bother(and the attendant costs...viz: the Laurie Morris case!) and the
>pssblty of
>being bank-rupted!
Yes, which is why it is better to avoid such a thing in the first place, ie.
scare them off, keep them cornered, or maim (though the latter is hard). If
they have a deadly weapon, pop them.
Chris
Brian
>
> Brian wrote in message <38F2661B...@apex.net.au>...
> >jimbo wrote:
> >>
> >> The outrageous travesty of justice that constituted the Martin Bryant
> >> 'trial' should
> >> be a lasting shame to every citizen of this nation who values 'a fair go'
> >> and 'equal justice for all before the law'
> >> Is this what we have now descended to in this country?
> >> Media-controlled show trials? Where did these maggots get their
> >> idea of jurisprudence from? North Korea?!
> >>
> >> "in a nation that unjustly gaols its citizens, the only place for a just
> man
> >> is in gaol"
> >
> >I take it then you're against mandatory sentencing for minor property
> >crimes then?
>
> If we didn't have the Gun Grab, we wouldn't _need_ mandatory sentencing!
Pity reality indicates that mandatory sentencing was introduced before
the nUFL was, jimbo.
> The burglars could be BLOWN AWAY as soon as they came through the
> roof/window/door/whatever!
And you would then be up on either a murder charge or at least a
manslaughter charge, as it should be. You seem to be assuming that
simply because someone enters your home without your permission they
forfeit all their rights before the law, why?
Jimbo, you are one of the sort of people that the nUFL was intended to
disarm. The nutters and the loons. You speak and I don't doubt act
rather irresponsibly about firarms.
Hunter
> I'v read the 'transcript' Perhaps u'd care to point out exactly where he
> _admitted_
> to being the Prt Arthur gunman?
Oh he doesn't, he just admits to taking hostages at gunpoint on the same day,
showed a morbid curiosity about how many were killed and injured, and how badly
injured, and choice little lines like this
A. Would've saved you a lot of time if I'd been blown up with the hostage.
(the hostage he admits to taking mind you...)
or this choice little diatribe:
Q. That's what we want to know Martin, why.
A. What, what, would, I wouldn't hurt a person in my life.
Q. Well you've already said you'd put the man in your boot of the car.
A. Only, yes, yes.
Q. Then you've set fire to the car and you thought that he was in the boot.
A. ... inaudible ...
Q. So how do you explain that?
A. It was a bad thing.
Q. Well it was a bad thing.
A. But I got burnt too so, that doesn't worry you I suppose.
Now who would take this as someone who would be the Prt Arthur gunman? (besides
all the witnesses of course....). I mean just because he kidnaps people at
gunpoint on the same day and tries to burn someone alive, there's so many
looney's running around it must've been one of the other ones.
And of course, as a final note, there was his next best thing to an admission of
guilt.....
Q. Mr O'Garey will deal with that.
A. Not until me lawyer sees me. I'm sure you'll find the person who caused all
this. Me.
Q. I don't find that a very funny statement at all Martin, to be quite honest.
A. You should've put that on recording.
Q. Ohh it's still recording at this present stage. So that is on recording.
Hunter
> Why don't you find out exactly what Bryant could have and NOT have done in
> the port Arthur shooting?
>
> Read the whole story at:
>
> http://libyan.homestead.com/
I went to chapter 1 and the text warbles all over itself, they should try to get
their page to look readable.... I also see adds to buy books on the matter...
funny that....
I can't stop laughing at Joe Viall's theory that the Port Arthur massacre was
actually a "UN backed Psy Op"... I mean, this is the bloke you're taking as an
authority on the subject?
I notice this Joe Vialls dude is into a lot of other conspiracy theories as well
from a quick search....Cancer conspiracies, conspiracies to do with the shooting
of that police woman from a certain embassy, conspiracies to do with secret
towers navigating nuclear subs, CIA in the oil trade conspiracies, Gulf War
conspiracies, The Lockerbie bombing trial conspiracies etc.
Ahhh well, at least I liked the article on the growth and propagation of the
Bryant conspiracy theory at:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/9809/12/text/features4.html
Hunter
> Rubbish! By the time u find out whether or not the schmuck is armed
> (ever heard of a 'concealed weapon'?) itz gunna be too late...at least,
> too late for _u_. Shoot first, ask questions afterwards......if the prick is
> wandering
> around yr house at 3a.m., itz a fair bet he hasn't come over to borrow a cup
> of sugar or have a drink of water out of the faucet in yr yard!
I'm all for self defence, and I reckon if someone comes at you with a baseball
bat then you should have every right to do whatever you want to stop the fucker,
bugger this crap about equal or less force, but what you're saying is probly
exactly what that poor bastard over East that shot his son thinking he was an
intruder a number of years back was thinking. Didn't work for him either, you
need to be sure of what you're doing before you do it.
Floyd.
What has one to do with the other? Your lack of reasoning here confirms the
general opinion of your mental instability.
> Also: we see no convincing evidence put to Bryant by the police that
> would establish his guilt......
You're right. Like all good wannabe gun owners, you believe all these people
shot themselves.
Besides, that's a court issue, NOT a police interview issue.
G
stereotype <stere...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:nl65fssdtbp4gelp8...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 05:20:00 +0200, "G" <russellp*DELETE*@iafrica.com>
> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >It's easy to say the guy deserves to be in jail, but how much do you
> >actually KNOW of what happened at Port Arthur? Why not educate yourself
> >about a few things before passing judgement? If you do read all the stuff
> >Vialls has written on his site about port Arthur and STILL reckon Bryant
is
> >guilty let me know. Seriously, I'd like to hear how and why you think so.
> >Regards,
> >G.
>
> Seriously, you need to seek help.
Yup, that's the kind of well argued point I expected from you. I think my
point is made, there's no point in arguing with ignorant people who refuse
to even look at the facts, never mind discuss them.
Bryant did NOT shoot 22 people dead in the cafe with 19 head shots out of 22
bodies using point index shooting from the right hip (Bryant is left
handed). In fact, despite my many years owning and shooting guns, I'm pretty
sure I couldn't do that in 30 seconds either. No one that hasn't been
extensively trained to do that can. And even amongst the best special forces
people in the world you'd be hard pressed to find someone that 'good'.
You obviously have disqualified yourself from rational conversation since
ignoring these and other facts pertaing to Port Arthur constitutes either
plain old stupidity, arrogance on a massive scale or intention to deceive.
Your reasons are unimportant to me. You can consider yourself ignored form
now on.
G.
G
Sean <sean_...@nospam-hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:q2AI4.2979$5D....@ozemail.com.au...> >>Who cares why he did it. He did do it.
> >
> >And he admits it. He also said why he did it. He was homosexual and
> >couldn't deal with it. Why is that do you think?
Because he's a sick twisted fuck.
> > Because society told
> >him from the day he was born that homosexuals are freaks and perverts?
> >So he gets to the age of 19, sexually charged, and he doesn't know who
> >he is.
He lost his wallet and ID?
> > So, he tries to prove to himself that he's heterosexual by
> >raping a young girl (he didn't mean to kill her at first, but did in
> >the end after he realised he would be recognised). Do you think
> >society is partly to blame for his crimes (even though nobody forced
> >him to do it)?
No. Society didn't do it. The fence post didn't do it. His great-grandmother
didn't do it. HE did. ONLY him. HE is guilty, no one else.
> > I do.
Well, you're wrong and foolish, what's your point?
> > Sure, 99.99% of people in similar situations
> >wouldn't do the same thing, but how can you know for sure what's going
> >on inside his head?
Who cares? That's the whole point you're missing sonny boy. It doesn't
MATTER what is going on in your or mine or anyone else's head. Rape and
murder are WRONG. Always. Forever and ever and ever. Got it? OTHERWISE...if
you wanna excuse people based on what's going on in their heads, that gives
me the right to blow away anyone that disagrees with me. I just can't stand
the emotional trauma don't ya know...
Moron. Take responsability for your life. It's not society's fault if you do
fucked up things. It's YOURS and yours alone.
> >One thing is for sure. If the whole society comes
> >to terms with the fact that homosexuality is normal and people do not
> >have a choice, these crimes will happen a lot less often.
Bullshit. Scientific American produced a clinical study of 1000 dead
homosexuals and the examination of their brain clearly showed that the area
of their brain that deals with sexual imagination was more 'overused' than
that in heterosexual men. It is also proven that the brain adapts based on
what we constantly think about, do physically, or train ourself into.
There are a small number of homosexuals that honestly have their hormone and
even chromosomes screwed up so that they litterally are women in men's
bodies. A sex change is a useful thing for this small group of people, and I
do feel for them, their lives must be very difficult. But your garden varied
homosexual is such largely by choice (brought on by sexual abuse in some
cases, other abuse in others or just pure choice for yet others, still, how
YOU react to abuse is up to YOU, no one else, seeing a trend yet?)
In any event, again, your statement that there's nothing 'wrong' with being
a homosexual because people can't help it, is in itself incriminatory. What
it says by inference is that if people DID have a choice about it then it
WOULD be wrong.
Personally I couldn't give a rat's ass what people do in the privacy of
their own homes, but don't go telling me that being a homosexual is
'natural' it's about as natural as shoving golf-balls up your ass in order
to sexually stimulate yourself. It AIN'T natural, or normal, and it would
piss golfers off if you were to suggest it was.
Besides, we can play it both ways. I'll go along with the "it's their genes"
BS concerning homosexuals as long as you go along with my "I need to
physically express myself violently whenever I feel like it" story, because
it too is in my "genes".
As is of course, my need to carry a gun.
Can't have it both ways boyo. Either take responsability for your life or
admit that everyone can then really do what the fuck they please, which is
chaos.
G.
Bruce Lloyd
wrote:
>
>If we didn't have the Gun Grab, we wouldn't _need_ mandatory sentencing!
>The burglars could be BLOWN AWAY as soon as they came through the
>roof/window/door/whatever!
>
You don't go out much then?
regards
Bruce
Illawarra Cyber Cyclists - http://www.ozemail.com.au/~bcl
Nick Andrew
>Bryant was a mental defective. Why wouldn't he admit it?
It doesn't take a high mental age to figure out that admitting a
crime may result in bad things happening. Even toddlers will frequently
lie about something they did and weren't allowed to do.
>Also: we see no convincing evidence put to Bryant by the police that
>would establish his guilt......
I'm not sure that it is inecessary to provide incontrovertible proof
of guilt in a ... police interview! That's what the trial process is
for. Furthermore there's no need for the police to convince the suspect
of his guilt.
Nick.
--
Pacific Internet SP4 Fax: +61-2-9233-6545 Voice: 9253-5762
G.P.O. Box 3400, Sydney NSW 1043 http://www.zeta.org.au/
Su Solomon
There you go (sigh) all that expensive training and a crackpot can shoot
better then you could.
Kym HORSELL
>On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 15:34:30 +1000, "jimbo" <jim...@mailcity.com>
>wrote:
>>If we didn't have the Gun Grab, we wouldn't _need_ mandatory sentencing!
>>The burglars could be BLOWN AWAY as soon as they came through the
>>roof/window/door/whatever!
>You don't go out much then?
How would he guard his possessions then?
jimbo
>In <38f3...@news.alphalink.com.au> "jimbo" <jim...@mailcity.com> writes:
>
>>Bryant was a mental defective. Why wouldn't he admit it?
>It doesn't take a high mental age to figure out that admitting a
>crime may result in bad things happening. Even toddlers will frequently
>lie about something they did and weren't allowed to do.
and even hardened crims will 'fess up when confronted with the overwhelming
weight of evidence. The point being, there wasn't any......
>>Also: we see no convincing evidence put to Bryant by the police that
>>would establish his guilt......
>I'm not sure that it is inecessary to provide incontrovertible proof
>of guilt in a ... police interview! That's what the trial process is
>for. Furthermore there's no need for the police to convince the suspect
>of his guilt.
If the suspect is sitting there and saying nothing.....yes!....no point
going on
with it. However, if the suspect is trying to 'talk his way out of it' or
giving conflicting accounts, then _YES_ it _IS_ necessary to confront them
with the evidence...it also makes the court case(when it happens) MUCH
STRONGER..particularly in these days of video-taped interviews!
Bryant's case fell short on _both_ counts...no evidence put to the accused
and no court case!
jimbo
Floyd. wrote in message ...
>What has one to do with the other? Your lack of reasoning here confirms the
>general opinion of your mental instability.
Simple: mental defectives aren't noted for their cunning and evasiveness,
particularly when confronted with skilled police interragators.
Your lack of understanding and insight here confirms the general opinion
that u are _another_ card-carrying member of the media brainwashed,
politically
correct couch spud brigade. Snap out of it before itz too late!
>> Also: we see no convincing evidence put to Bryant by the police that
> would establish his guilt......
>You're right. Like all good wannabe gun owners, you believe all these
people
>shot themselves.
Nope...I believe they were shot by third parties..._not_ Bryant.
Naturally, u haven't bothered to check any of the extensive evidence
for this at: http://www.overflow.net.au/~nedwood/portarthur.html.
U'v just decided to chuck ad homs around....like yr politically correct
media mafia
mates! Good one, idiot!
>Besides, that's a court issue, NOT a police interview issue.
It's both......police frequently make out a strong case during an interview
that will bolster the court case. In Bryant's case, however, there was
neither.....police case _or_ court case. Why? Simply because there
was no evidence except for media bullshit!
jimbo
>jimbo wrote:
>
>> I'v read the 'transcript' Perhaps u'd care to point out exactly where he
>> _admitted_
>> to being the Prt Arthur gunman?
>
>Oh he doesn't, he just admits to taking hostages at gunpoint on the same
day,
>showed a morbid curiosity about how many were killed and injured, and how
badly
>injured, and choice little lines like this
>A. Would've saved you a lot of time if I'd been blown up with the hostage.
and this establishes what? Where are the follow-up, detailed questions
from the police establishing the exact details of the situation......?
This is an out-of-context statement by the suspect that has no
validity, without additional verifying material...
>(the hostage he admits to taking mind you...)
>or this choice little diatribe:
>Q. That's what we want to know Martin, why.
>A. What, what, would, I wouldn't hurt a person in my life.
And he still hasn't.....
Q. Well you've already said you'd put the man in your boot of the car.
>A. Only, yes, yes.
>Q. Then you've set fire to the car and you thought that he was in the boot.
>A. ... inaudible ...
>Q. So how do you explain that?
>A. It was a bad thing.
what has any of this to do with the massacre at Prt Arthur?
Ok...let's have the detailed list of events pre- and post-
the car-boot hostage incident.......I'm sure there in the
transcript somewhere?
Times? Make of car? Colour of car? Description of hostage?
Route car took? Whether other people saw car? Method of
tying person up? Noise person made? Any resistance offered by
person? &c &c....u know! The type of detailed, _in depth_ questions
that skilled interragators _always_ ask. Or aren't there any
skilled interragators on the Tsmn Police force? Just clod-hoppers
with third-grade edumactions who talk in vague generalities?!
>Q. Well it was a bad thing.
>A. But I got burnt too so, that doesn't worry you I suppose.
As above.....
>Now who would take this as someone who would be the Prt Arthur gunman?
(besides
>all the witnesses of course....). I mean just because he kidnaps people at
>gunpoint on the same day and tries to burn someone alive, there's so many
>looney's running around it must've been one of the other ones.
Sorry...yr evidence for that....is? (no media bullshit here, thnx!)
>And of course, as a final note, there was his next best thing to an
admission of
>guilt.....
>
>Q. Mr O'Garey will deal with that.
>
>A. Not until me lawyer sees me. I'm sure you'll find the person who caused
all
>this. Me.
>Q. I don't find that a very funny statement at all Martin, to be quite
honest.
>A. You should've put that on recording.
>Q. Ohh it's still recording at this present stage. So that is on recording.
Yeah....brilliant! A first class admission of guilt that would stand up
before
any judge or jury! BTW: ever heard of those nutcases who run into
police stations and admit to crimes they didn't do?! Hmmmmmmm......
or perhaps, u wanna deny that happens...in _this_ particular instance,
anyway!
************************************************************************
Many people plead guilty to crimes they could not have committed,
a situation that routinely presents police forces around the world with a
big problem,
especially if the guilty pleas are entered by a person who is intellectually
impaired
or otherwise mentally deficient. Standard procedure in these circumstances
is to take the suspect out to the crime scene and ask for details of exactly
how he committed the crime(s), i.e. where each victim was standing, what
sex,
how many bullets, where the weapon was reloaded, etc etc., all recorded
on continuous (Time-stamped) video.
**The Victorian Police Service observed this standard procedure
meticulously in the case of Julian Knight at Hoddle Street during 1987, as
did the New South Wales Police Service after a street shooting in Wollongong
in 1998.**
Both suspects provided ample accurate details at the respective
crime scenes on continuous video tape without prompting by police, and both
were then properly and fairly dealt with. Nearly three years after Martin
inexplicably
changed his pleas to guilty in November 1996, the Tasmanian Police Service
has
still not verified his guilt using this standard procedure, and its
continued refusal to
do so can realistically be taken as proof of Martin Bryant's innocence.
************************************************************************
jimbo
>G wrote:
>
>> Why don't you find out exactly what Bryant could have and NOT have done
in
>> the port Arthur shooting?
>>
>> Read the whole story at:
>>
>> http://libyan.homestead.com/
>
>I went to chapter 1 and the text warbles all over itself, they should try
to get
>their page to look readable.... I also see adds to buy books on the
matter...
>funny that....
>
>
>I can't stop laughing at Joe Viall's theory that the Port Arthur massacre
was
>actually a "UN backed Psy Op"... I mean, this is the bloke you're taking as
an
>authority on the subject?
Someone had to expose this atrocity.....the intellectual elite pinheads
who inhabit our citadels of politically correct FILTH(i.e: the universities)
certainly wouldn't have had the guts to do it....neither would a worthless
WANKER like u!
>I notice this Joe Vialls dude is into a lot of other conspiracy theories as
well
>from a quick search....Cancer conspiracies, conspiracies to do with the
shooting
>of that police woman from a certain embassy, conspiracies to do with secret
>towers navigating nuclear subs, CIA in the oil trade conspiracies, Gulf War
>conspiracies, The Lockerbie bombing trial conspiracies etc.
>Ahhh well, at least I liked the article on the growth and propagation of
the
>Bryant conspiracy theory at:
>http://www.smh.com.au/news/9809/12/text/features4.html
Wotz ya point? Conspiracies don't happen? How many instances of
conspiracy do you want from the historical record to refute that
stoopid notion? Disprove, the assertions, bozo.......and get rid
of those straw men!
jimbo
>jimbo wrote:
>>
>> Brian wrote in message <38F2661B...@apex.net.au>...
>> >jimbo wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The outrageous travesty of justice that constituted the Martin Bryant
>> >> 'trial' should
>> >> be a lasting shame to every citizen of this nation who values 'a fair
go'
>> >> and 'equal justice for all before the law'
>> >> Is this what we have now descended to in this country?
>> >> Media-controlled show trials? Where did these maggots get their
>> >> idea of jurisprudence from? North Korea?!
>> >>
>> >> "in a nation that unjustly gaols its citizens, the only place for a
just
>> man
>> >> is in gaol"
>> >
>> >I take it then you're against mandatory sentencing for minor property
>> >crimes then?
>>
>
>the nUFL was, jimbo.
>
>> roof/window/door/whatever!
>And you would then be up on either a murder charge or at least a
>manslaughter charge, as it should be. You seem to be assuming that
>simply because someone enters your home without your permission they
>forfeit all their rights before the law, why?
Yep! Exactly! 'Cos if he's strolling around my living-room at 3a.m. he
is up to no good...u can be sure of that! After a challenge(and depending on
how
he responded to it...unless he agreed to wait quietly for the police!) I
would
most certainly unload on him!
>Jimbo, you are one of the sort of people that the nUFL was intended to
>disarm. The nutters and the loons. You speak and I don't doubt act
>rather irresponsibly about firarms.
Yr the NUTTER pal! The right to defend yr own life and property goes
back to English Common Law, the Constitution of 1689, the Magna
Carta and, before that, the Bible! If you don't like those legal
precedents....
go and live somewhere like Nrth Korea or Burma, where they don't
have them......along with all the other marxist maniacs!
See how you like living in a society where the only people armed are
the cops and the military...ENJOY!
jimbo
>
>jimbo wrote in message <38f3...@news.alphalink.com.au>...
>>Chris G wrote in message <38f2...@news.iprimus.com.au>...
>>>
>>>jimbo wrote in message <38f3...@news.alphalink.com.au>...
>>>>>jimbo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The outrageous travesty of justice that constituted the Martin Bryant
>>>>>> 'trial' should
>>>>>> be a lasting shame to every citizen of this nation who values 'a fair
>>>go'
>>>>>> and 'equal justice for all before the law'
>>>>>> Is this what we have now descended to in this country?
>>>>>> Media-controlled show trials? Where did these maggots get their
>>>>>> idea of jurisprudence from? North Korea?!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "in a nation that unjustly gaols its citizens, the only place for a
>>just
>>>>man
>>>>>> is in gaol"
>>>>>
>>>>>I take it then you're against mandatory sentencing for minor property
>>>>>crimes then?
>>>>
>>>>If we didn't have the Gun Grab, we wouldn't _need_ mandatory sentencing!
>>>>roof/window/door/whatever!
>>>
irresponsible.
>>>Shooting to maim is fine, but killing someone if they appear to be merely
>>>stealing is pretty stupid. If they have a bat/gun/knife, it means
they're
>>>ready to use it on someone, so by all means, unload on them.
>>
>>(ever heard of a 'concealed weapon'?) itz gunna be too late...at least,
>>too late for _u_.
>If you have a gun trained at a perp, you give them warning and you give
them
>orders of what to do. If you don't feel up to this, take a course.
Courses
>are good for at least giving you some methods for dealing with high
>stress/danger situations. If they do not stop or keep their hands where
you
>can see them, and you believe they are going for a weapon, then I guess you
>have no choice. But shooting an unarmed perp is unnecessary.
Ok.......I left out the warning; as an assumed preliminary action.
Why? Because most of the psychos around these days wouldn't
take any notice anyway(see below: Laurie Morris case!).....
Sure: u warn first! And, if they sit there nice
and quietly waiting for the cops...fine! Realistically: what are your
chances of
this occuring? Almost NIL! Thatz why I didn't even bother to include it!
>> Shoot first, ask questions afterwards......if the prick is
>>wandering
>>around yr house at 3a.m., itz a fair bet he hasn't come over to borrow a
>cup
>>of sugar or have a drink of water out of the faucet in yr yard!
>No, but he might be trying to flog your gear without confrontation.
And if he is confronted.....he will try to eliminate you as an imediment.
Facts of life these days!
> No
>>reasonable jury
>>would convict in such a scenario!.....yr only trouble is going to be all
>the
>>legal fuss and
>>bother(and the attendant costs...viz: the Laurie Morris case!) and the
>>pssblty of
>>being bank-rupted!
>Yes, which is why it is better to avoid such a thing in the first place,
ie.
>scare them off, keep them cornered, or maim (though the latter is hard).
If
>they have a deadly weapon, pop them.
Cops are trained to shoot at the 'largest body mass' That is, the torso.
Thatz why most people they shoot DIE. All this shooting them in the ankles
stuff
is bullshit...u haven't got TIME...if the prick is coming at u at 100ks
wielding a
machette with the express intention of decapitation....u don't pause to
discuss
the weather....thatz why i cited the Laurie Morris case. The prick who
burgled his
house was a drugged-out psycho with his drugged-out psycho mates in the
back-ground egging him on! He was given _TWO_ warnings but kept coming....
intent on murder and mayhem. He got exactly what he deserved!
Chris G
jimbo wrote in message <38f4...@news.alphalink.com.au>...
>Chris G wrote in message <38f3...@news.iprimus.com.au>...
>>>Rubbish! By the time u find out whether or not the schmuck is armed
>>>(ever heard of a 'concealed weapon'?) itz gunna be too late...at least,
>>>too late for _u_.
>
>>If you have a gun trained at a perp, you give them warning and you give
>them
>>orders of what to do. If you don't feel up to this, take a course.
>Courses
>>are good for at least giving you some methods for dealing with high
>>stress/danger situations. If they do not stop or keep their hands where
>you
>>can see them, and you believe they are going for a weapon, then I guess
you
>>have no choice. But shooting an unarmed perp is unnecessary.
>
>Ok.......I left out the warning; as an assumed preliminary action.
>Why? Because most of the psychos around these days wouldn't
>take any notice anyway(see below: Laurie Morris case!).....
>Sure: u warn first! And, if they sit there nice
>and quietly waiting for the cops...fine! Realistically: what are your
>chances of
>this occuring? Almost NIL! Thatz why I didn't even bother to include it!
If you have a gun trained on them, they'll either listen to you, run away,
advance on you, or (if they're armed) try and pull a weapon out. Seeing as
you have the clear advantage, the last two would only be undertaken by
psychos, someone who's drunk, or someone who's wired on drugs. In both of
those cases, you *should* have the right to gun that person down, or maim
them. In the other two cases, there is no need to shoot as the task of
defending yourself has already been accomplished. You are not a judicial
system by yourself, it is not your place to shoot someone out of revenge for
them being on your property (unless you live in Texas). If the person no
longer presents themselves as a threat, you should not be shooting them.
>
>>> Shoot first, ask questions afterwards......if the prick is
>>>wandering
>>>around yr house at 3a.m., itz a fair bet he hasn't come over to borrow a
>>cup
>>>of sugar or have a drink of water out of the faucet in yr yard!
>
>>No, but he might be trying to flog your gear without confrontation.
>
>And if he is confronted.....he will try to eliminate you as an imediment.
>Facts of life these days!
This is hollywood fantasy. Most thieves who are confronted, even by unarmed
occupants/business owners, attempt to flee. Most theives do not want to
escalate their crime above break and enter to any of the following: home
invasion, battery/assault, seriously bodily harm or murder. Because of
that, most do not even carry weapons in Australia.
It is nonsense to assume that every thief is a calculating deadly weapon,
just waiting to stumble upon a home owner and then immediately kill all the
witnesses.
>
>> No
>>>reasonable jury
>>>would convict in such a scenario!.....yr only trouble is going to be all
>>the
>>>legal fuss and
>>>bother(and the attendant costs...viz: the Laurie Morris case!) and the
>>>pssblty of
>>>being bank-rupted!
>
>>Yes, which is why it is better to avoid such a thing in the first place,
>ie.
>>scare them off, keep them cornered, or maim (though the latter is hard).
>If
>>they have a deadly weapon, pop them.
>
>Cops are trained to shoot at the 'largest body mass' That is, the torso.
Only when there is a real threat of loss of life to themselves or an
innocent. None of this "kill to be safe" or "shoot first, ask questions
later" bullshit.
>Thatz why most people they shoot DIE.
Not really.
> All this shooting them in the ankles
>stuff
>is bullshit...
Who said anything about ankles? You can shoot thighs and shoulders. Outter
parts of the limbs are very hard to hit in a frantic situation.
> haven't got TIME
You do if they are unarmed or they do not have a weapon readied, which is
what I am talking about. I have already agreed that a thief with a weapon
is a threat, which you should be allowed to shoot.
>..if the prick is coming at u at 100ks
>wielding a
>machette with the express intention of decapitation
A rather odd scenario, don't you think? And if this is happening, give the
guy two rounds in the chest. If he keeps coming, aim for the head.
>...u don't pause to
>discuss
>the weather
Huh? You do think about your freedom though, and that will be taken away
from you if you kill someone who is not a threat to you.
>...thatz why i cited the Laurie Morris case. The prick who
>burgled his
>house was a drugged-out psycho with his drugged-out psycho mates in the
>back-ground egging him on! He was given _TWO_ warnings but kept coming....
>intent on murder and mayhem. He got exactly what he deserved!
I agree with you totally. Morris gave him two warnings, which is probably
more than even I would have allowed. If Morris had shot him without giving
warning, than I believe he would have been acting irresponsibly.
Chris
jimbo
....and that constitutes the lion's share of such incidents these days.
Most burglars are drugged-out psychos.
>In the other two cases, there is no need to shoot as the task of
>defending yourself has already been accomplished. You are not a judicial
>system by yourself, it is not your place to shoot someone out of revenge
for
>them being on your property (unless you live in Texas). If the person no
>longer presents themselves as a threat, you should not be shooting them.
Sorry.....if someone is illegally in yr living-room or front-bedroom at
3 a.m. and refuses to await the police on yr demands than you
_do_ have the right to shoot them. How the hell do you know
they're not gunna return a few hours later and inflict some more damage?
Furthermore, there have been acquittals by juries on just such incidents.
We're not talking about someone jumping over yr front fence to get
a drink of water at the garden tap. We're talking about someone
breaking into yr house when there is a good probability that
u are home. Clearly, they are not too concerned about confronting you.
And why should they be in these post-Gun Grab days when, even if
u happen to own a gun and use it, u'll likely end up in more trouble than
the THUG?!
>>>> Shoot first, ask questions afterwards......if the prick is
>>>>wandering
>>>>around yr house at 3a.m., itz a fair bet he hasn't come over to borrow a
>>>cup
>>>>of sugar or have a drink of water out of the faucet in yr yard!
>>
>>>No, but he might be trying to flog your gear without confrontation.
>>
>>And if he is confronted.....he will try to eliminate you as an imediment.
>>Facts of life these days!
>This is hollywood fantasy. Most thieves who are confronted, even by
unarmed
>occupants/business owners, attempt to flee. Most theives do not want to
>escalate their crime above break and enter to any of the following: home
>invasion, battery/assault, seriously bodily harm or murder. Because of
>that, most do not even carry weapons in Australia.
Baloney! How many crims have you confronted? Methinks u don't
know wot the hell yr talking about.
>It is nonsense to assume that every thief is a calculating deadly weapon,
>just waiting to stumble upon a home owner and then immediately kill all the
>witnesses.
Who said anything about 'killing all the witnesses'? Wot they will do,
however,
is to inflict serious damage on _u_ or yr loved ones in order to either:
[i]facilitate their escape and/or [ii]get the items they came for in the
first place
to support their druggo habit!
>>> No
>>>>reasonable jury
>>>>would convict in such a scenario!.....yr only trouble is going to be all
>>>the
>>>>legal fuss and
>>>>bother(and the attendant costs...viz: the Laurie Morris case!) and the
>>>>pssblty of
>>>>being bank-rupted!
>>
>>>Yes, which is why it is better to avoid such a thing in the first place,
>>ie.
>>>scare them off, keep them cornered, or maim (though the latter is hard).
>>If
>>>they have a deadly weapon, pop them.
>>
>>Cops are trained to shoot at the 'largest body mass' That is, the torso.
>
>Only when there is a real threat of loss of life to themselves or an
>innocent. None of this "kill to be safe" or "shoot first, ask questions
>later" bullshit.
...just the same circumstances in which house-holders shoot burglars.
Someone floating around yr living-room at 3a.m.(most probably armed)
and who refuses requests to await the police is certainly not interested
in yr health and well-being!
>>Thatz why most people they shoot DIE.
>Not really.
Yes, REALLY! sorry...if u fire a heavy-calibre handgun into someone's
torso they will, in all probability, DIE...unless they get highly
specialised
medical attention very quickly indeed! Even so, they may still DIE!
>> All this shooting them in the ankles
>>stuff
>>is bullshit...
>
>Who said anything about ankles? You can shoot thighs and shoulders.
Outter
>parts of the limbs are very hard to hit in a frantic situation.
...so are thighs and shoulders. Ever seen an angry, psychotic crim
attacking?
They don't stroll up to you and say: 'howz ya fatha?' They crouch down,
utter several loud expletives and CHARGE! Very hard to hit
shoulders, thighs, hands, feet, kneecaps and funny-bones in that situation!
>> haven't got TIME
>You do if they are unarmed or they do not have a weapon readied, which is
>what I am talking about. I have already agreed that a thief with a weapon
>is a threat, which you should be allowed to shoot.
That is, until they pull a weapon out from their pocket, belt, shoe,
shoulder holster...whatever. Geeeezzzz! Look! They've got a weapon!
Uhhh......BANG! Ahhhh....Too late!
>>..if the prick is coming at u at 100ks
>>wielding a
>>machette with the express intention of decapitation
>A rather odd scenario, don't you think? And if this is happening, give the
>guy two rounds in the chest. If he keeps coming, aim for the head.
all too common nowadays. If not a machette, some other implement....maybe
even a GUN. (gun laws don't bother crims, u know......they don't
obey laws anyway!)
>>...u don't pause to
>>discuss
>>the weather
>Huh? You do think about your freedom though, and that will be taken away
>from you if you kill someone who is not a threat to you.
As above: someone floating around yr living-room or bed-room at
3 a.m. who refuses to agree to yr polite request to await the police
IS A THREAT to U! Sure... u may well lose yr freedom for a short while....
until the case gets to trial, or until u get bail, but u will have saved yr
LIFE!
(u can be pretty confident that no jury in Oz will convict u of such an
'offence'....
thatz why they've got all these beefed-up penalties for bullshit gun
'offences' now...they KNOW THAT!)
>>...thatz why i cited the Laurie Morris case. The prick who
>>burgled his
>>house was a drugged-out psycho with his drugged-out psycho mates in the
>>back-ground egging him on! He was given _TWO_ warnings but kept coming....
>>intent on murder and mayhem. He got exactly what he deserved!
>I agree with you totally. Morris gave him two warnings, which is probably
>more than even I would have allowed. If Morris had shot him without giving
>warning, than I believe he would have been acting irresponsibly.
Morris was charged with attempted murder, amongst other things.
So, clearly, the politically correct mafia is not interested in the finer
points
of self-defence. ANYONE who uses a gun to defend their life, property or
the lives of others is a CRIMINAL in their myopic eyes!
Chris G
Not in this country. Not in most countries. So if they get up to leave,
you're going to shoot them in the back? That would go down real well in the
coroner's report.
> How the hell do you know
>they're not gunna return a few hours later and inflict some more damage?
"I shot him because I *thought* he might come back and kill me."
Yep, that'd go down well to.
>Furthermore, there have been acquittals by juries on just such incidents.
>We're not talking about someone jumping over yr front fence to get
>a drink of water at the garden tap. We're talking about someone
>breaking into yr house when there is a good probability that
>u are home. Clearly, they are not too concerned about confronting you.
>And why should they be in these post-Gun Grab days when, even if
>u happen to own a gun and use it, u'll likely end up in more trouble than
>the THUG?!
If you are being threatened (not think you might be in the future) with a
weapon, or even an unarmed, advancing person, then you should have the right
to shoot them.
>
>>>>> Shoot first, ask questions afterwards......if the prick is
>>>>>wandering
>>>>>around yr house at 3a.m., itz a fair bet he hasn't come over to borrow
a
>>>>cup
>>>>>of sugar or have a drink of water out of the faucet in yr yard!
>>>
>>>>No, but he might be trying to flog your gear without confrontation.
>>>
>>>And if he is confronted.....he will try to eliminate you as an imediment.
>>>Facts of life these days!
>
>>This is hollywood fantasy. Most thieves who are confronted, even by
>unarmed
>>occupants/business owners, attempt to flee. Most theives do not want to
>>escalate their crime above break and enter to any of the following: home
>>invasion, battery/assault, seriously bodily harm or murder. Because of
>>that, most do not even carry weapons in Australia.
>
>Baloney! How many crims have you confronted?
Think about it. The majority of these punks are young and looking for quick
cash, not murdering a whole family so they can flog your CDs.
> Methinks u don't
>know wot the hell yr talking about.
You sound like you watch too much Seagal.
>
>>It is nonsense to assume that every thief is a calculating deadly weapon,
>>just waiting to stumble upon a home owner and then immediately kill all
the
>>witnesses.
>
>Who said anything about 'killing all the witnesses'?
You did, "he will try to eliminate you as an imediment". He will more
likely run away, then risk being done for murder or serious assault.
> Wot they will do,
>however,
>is to inflict serious damage on _u_ or yr loved ones in order to either:
>[i]facilitate their escape and/or [ii]get the items they came for in the
>first place
>to support their druggo habit!
They will more likely attempt to harm you if you are unarmed. If you have a
gun, or even a bat, they are not likely to continue attacking you.
>>>> No
>>>>>reasonable jury
>>>>>would convict in such a scenario!.....yr only trouble is going to be
all
>>>>the
>>>>>legal fuss and
>>>>>bother(and the attendant costs...viz: the Laurie Morris case!) and the
>>>>>pssblty of
>>>>>being bank-rupted!
>>>
>>>>Yes, which is why it is better to avoid such a thing in the first place,
>>>ie.
>>>>scare them off, keep them cornered, or maim (though the latter is hard).
>>>If
>>>>they have a deadly weapon, pop them.
>>>
>>>Cops are trained to shoot at the 'largest body mass' That is, the torso.
>>
>>Only when there is a real threat of loss of life to themselves or an
>>innocent. None of this "kill to be safe" or "shoot first, ask questions
>>later" bullshit.
>
>...just the same circumstances in which house-holders shoot burglars.
>Someone floating around yr living-room at 3a.m.(most probably armed)
Bullshit. Who says they are most probably armed? Early 90s action flicks?
A home invader will be armed. Their intent is to loudly invade the home,
cause you injury, and steal your goods. This usually happens when they need
the occupants to open their safe, take them to their business's cash
holdings, or take them to an ATM to withdraw cash.
A thief is entirely different, preferring to not make contact with anyone at
all.
>and who refuses requests to await the police is certainly not interested
>in yr health and well-being!
They're interested in escaping if you have a gun pointed at them!
>>> All this shooting them in the ankles
>>>stuff
>>>is bullshit...
>>
>>Who said anything about ankles? You can shoot thighs and shoulders.
>Outter
>>parts of the limbs are very hard to hit in a frantic situation.
>
>...so are thighs and shoulders. Ever seen an angry, psychotic crim
>attacking?
Nope, neither have you (discounting movies).
>They don't stroll up to you and say: 'howz ya fatha?' They crouch down,
>utter several loud expletives and CHARGE!
Is this in the criminal handbook as preferred procedure? Come on, this all
sounds hollywood. The very rare occassion may arise when you have a
drunken/drug fucked loon attack you while you hold a gun at them. This is
not normal though. And AGAIN, I've already agreed that it is proper to
shoot someone who is attacking you, so why persist?
> Very hard to hit
>shoulders, thighs, hands, feet, kneecaps and funny-bones in that situation!
Thighs and shoulders are probably easier to hit then the head, considering
recoil might bump your shot too high (or wide) and miss entirely.
>
>>> haven't got TIME
>
>>You do if they are unarmed or they do not have a weapon readied, which is
>>what I am talking about. I have already agreed that a thief with a weapon
>>is a threat, which you should be allowed to shoot.
>
>That is, until they pull a weapon out from their pocket, belt, shoe,
>shoulder holster...whatever. Geeeezzzz! Look! They've got a weapon!
>Uhhh......BANG! Ahhhh....Too late!
Two things:
1) If a perp does not have a weapon readied and you have a gun trained at
them, what the hell are you doing while they are pulling out a weapon? At
least try to be a bit realistic. If a perp goes for a weapon, there is no
way (unless you're an absolute moron) that they can get their weapon out
before you pull the trigger.
2) If you shoot an unarmed perp (who is not moving on you) because you
"think" he might have a weapon, you should not have a gun licence.
>
>>>..if the prick is coming at u at 100ks
>>>wielding a
>>>machette with the express intention of decapitation
>
>>A rather odd scenario, don't you think? And if this is happening, give
the
>>guy two rounds in the chest. If he keeps coming, aim for the head.
>
>all too common nowadays.
Not at all. Not in Australia anyway.
> If not a machette, some other implement....maybe
>even a GUN. (gun laws don't bother crims, u know......they don't
>obey laws anyway!)
If they have a weapon other than a firearm, you issue a warning. If they
keep their distance, or try to run, you do not shoot them.
If they have a gun, they may see you first and take aim, at which point, you
fire as quickly as possible. If you see them first, you have to yell a
warning. If they turn to shoot at you, drop them.
But seeing most theives are unarmed in Australia, it's really more of an
issue for home invasions. Home invaders are armed, and are looking for a
confrontation.
>
>>>...u don't pause to
>>>discuss
>>>the weather
>
>>Huh? You do think about your freedom though, and that will be taken away
>>from you if you kill someone who is not a threat to you.
>
>As above: someone floating around yr living-room or bed-room at
>3 a.m. who refuses to agree to yr polite request to await the police
>IS A THREAT to U!
No, they are only a threat if they advance on you. They are NOT a threat if
they try and flee (which is the usual case unless they're fucked off some
substance).
> Sure... u may well lose yr freedom for a short while....
>until the case gets to trial, or until u get bail, but u will have saved yr
>LIFE!
Shooting a fleeing perp doesn't save your life, it will probably ruin it.
If you have them at gun point and have rung the cops, then three things can
happen:
1) They run away (if you shoot them, you're fucked)
2) They stay at bay
3) They attack you (go ahead an pop them).
>(u can be pretty confident that no jury in Oz will convict u of such an
>'offence'....
>thatz why they've got all these beefed-up penalties for bullshit gun
>'offences' now...they KNOW THAT!)
No, you have to be under serious threat. If they are attempting to flee or
are not attacking you, you will be punished for shooting them. Tell me
this, if you were held at gunpoint, and all you had was a knife, would you
jump at the guy with the gun?
Probably not, unless you were drug fucked.
>
>>>...thatz why i cited the Laurie Morris case. The prick who
>>>burgled his
>>>house was a drugged-out psycho with his drugged-out psycho mates in the
>>>back-ground egging him on! He was given _TWO_ warnings but kept
coming....
>>>intent on murder and mayhem. He got exactly what he deserved!
>
>>I agree with you totally. Morris gave him two warnings, which is probably
>>more than even I would have allowed. If Morris had shot him without
giving
>>warning, than I believe he would have been acting irresponsibly.
>
>Morris was charged with attempted murder, amongst other things.
They had to establish that the guy did give warnings though, and that he was
in fear of his life (as he was the guy with the gun, and the other guy
wasn't).
>So, clearly, the politically correct mafia is not interested in the finer
>points
>of self-defence. ANYONE who uses a gun to defend their life, property or
>the lives of others is a CRIMINAL in their myopic eyes!
If you shoot a fleeing perp, or one that is cornered/surrendered and not
attacking, then you are a criminal yourself. If you shoot someone who is
actually attacking you, good on you, you deserve a medal!
Chris
stereotype
wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 03:14:45 GMT, stereotype <stere...@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 00:26:40 GMT, ve...@world.net (Michael Simons)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 23:05:40 GMT, stereotype <stere...@my-deja.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 22:41:10 GMT, ve...@world.net (Michael Simons)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 19:16:58 +1000, "jimbo" <jim...@mailcity.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>The outrageous travesty of justice that constituted the Martin Bryant
>>>>>>'trial' should
>>>>>>be a lasting shame to every citizen of this nation who values 'a fair go'
>>>>>>and 'equal justice for all before the law'
>>>>>>Is this what we have now descended to in this country?
>>>>>>Media-controlled show trials? Where did these maggots get their
>>>>>>idea of jurisprudence from? North Korea?!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"in a nation that unjustly gaols its citizens, the only place for a just man
>>>>>>is in gaol"
>>>>>
>>>>>IMO, Bryant got what he deserved.
>>>>>
>>>>>But, I must admit that I was surprised to see how difficult it was for
>>>>>Bryant to get representation. I can't comment on the quality of his
>>>>>representation, but when you look at the high profile "goody goody two
>>>>>shoes" lawyers who clambered to represent slugs like Milat and other
>>>>>extremely violent offenders over the years, I wondered what was
>>>>>different about Bryant.
>>>>
>>>>Milat was a serial killer. Bryant was a mass-murderer. Do you know the
>>>>difference? Who was the "goody goody two shoes" lawyer that defended
>>>>Milat?
>>>
>>>Boe at first. Tried every trick to get him off.
>>>
>>>Who cares about a difference? Both deserve to be taken out of public
>>>circulation permanently in the interest of public safety.
>>
>>Mass-murderers are usually morons, low intelligence and low emotional
>>intelligence. Serial Killers are usually relatively intelligent.
>>
>>Bryant is a moron, or should I be more professional and say mentally
>>impoverished? He has the IQ of an 11-year old but the emotional
>>intelligence of a 2-year. It's not that surprising he found it hard to
>>get representation and had to have someone appointed by the judge.
>>Hobart is a small town, everyone either knew one of the people
>>murdered, or knew someone who knew someone who was murdered.
>>
>>Milat on the other hand is a reasonably intelligent (otherwise it
>>wouldn't have taken so long to catch him) psycopath from Sydney, at
>>least 10 times the size of Hobart, crimes like these happen regularly
>>in big cities. Defending him is not likely to destroy a lawyer's
>>career. Not only that, it wasn't certain that Milat was guilty until
>>we heard the evidence. The difference between mass-murder and serial
>>killing. Moron Bryant was caught in the act, Intelligent Milat was
>>caught after years of police work.
>
>
>And that is my point. We had an obvious mental case in Bryant, yet no
>body would defend him. Yet we have people like Milat (and others)
>where high profile lawyers will do every thing they can to "defend"
>them. If they can get an obviously guilty person off, all the better.
I can't agree. A defence lawyer is just that. They defend people. It
is their job. Someone has to do it, just like someone has to work at
the sewage plant treating your shit. It's not a job everyone will do,
that doesn't make them less than human because they defend the
occasional scumbag.
>
>Is that what defence means? Getting guilty people off? Or ensuring
>that they receive a fair trial where an appropriate punishment is
>dealt out.
No, it means picking holes in the prosecution's case, whether it means
attacking the evidence or attacking the individuals giving it I guess.
I'm not a lawyer, but I believe a lawyer who doesn't use contradicting
evidence to his clients advantage would be negligent. Maybe someone
else could clear this up. I don't watch the box much, but every time I
turn it on there is some lawyer trying to get a scumbag off. It's
their job. If the evidence is there of the person's guilt, it doesn't
matter how good the lawyer is, they won't get off.
>
>>>>>Where were the lawyers you see on TV whining about rights who
>>>>>represent the relatives of sporting stars who violently murder their
>>>>>girlfriends, the lawyers who do everything they can to minimise
>>>>>sentences imposed on wierdos who admit that they went out a thrill
>>>>>kill, leaving their elderly victim for dead in the bush, etc etc.
>>>>
>>>>Which lawyers are these? Defence lawyers? Oh yeah, those people whom
>>>>every person accused of a crime is entitled to? Them? Bastards!!! How
>>>>dare they defend someone who hasn't even been found guilty of a crime
>>>>yet. What scum!!
>>>
>>>
>>>When a lawyer uses the excuse "my client was high on a coctail of
>>>alcohol and marijuana, you must show leniancy", they are scum -
>>>especially when his client raped his ex girlfriend, bashed her over
>>>the head, shoved a fence post between her legs, and left her to bleed
>>>to death.
>>>
>>>By all means, ensure they get a fair trial, but I do not know how
>>>these people sleep at night after using every trick to minimise the
>>>sentences of oxygen thieves like this.
>>
>>Everyone deserves the right to a defence. Even Bryant and Milat. If
>>nobody will do it, the judge appoints someone. That person is then
>>bound to provide the best possible defence.
>
>
>Of course everyone is entitled to a fair trial. But does this mean
>that if a lawyer can get a guilty person off on a technicality they
>should go for it?
Yes. Give me some examples? John Elliott you mean? he got off. Should
he have? That was a technicality wasn't it?
>
>I'm not naive enougn to think that the world doesn't work by people
>exploiting technicalities. It's just that when $200,000 pa lawyers
>stand there and get scum life like this off, or minimise their
>sentences because some cop didn't cross every "T" , or the prosecution
>is too dumb or too cash strapped to counter some dubious jargen laiden
>technical expert that the jury and judge can't even understand, I get
>pretty frustrated with the legal profession.
Scum like who? Who got off? Milat didn't. Bryant didn't. Elliott did.
>
>Like I said, how do these people sleep at night? Why do they devote
>their careers to defending this type of person? Aren't there enough
>decent people in need of their help?
Give an example. Who got off an allegedly heinous crime?
>
>>>>>I heard an interview with a pschiatrist a month or so after Port
>>>>>Arthur on ABC radio. The interviewer called Bryant mentally ill. The
>>>>>shrink imediately pulled the interviewer up and explained that there
>>>>>was no way Bryant was mentally ill. IMO, if ever there was a mentally
>>>>>ill offender Bryant was it.
>>>>
>>>>Insert your psychiatric report here fuckwit. Should be a laugh.
>>>
>>>What is your assesment? Were his actions those of a sane person?
>>
>>Bryant hasn't been found insane, but that doesn't mean he's sane by
>>any means. He's not normal is probably more accurate. But without a
>>gun Bryant is nothing. He's a gutless piece of shit. Milat on the
>>other hand is psychologically dangerous. Without a gun he'd still kill
>>anyway he could. Martin Bryant's little brain "snapped", Milat's
>>calculating brain wouldn't have ever allowed him to stop killing.
>
>IOW, Bryant may or may not offend again, yet he had dubious defence
>and probably will never be released while we have lawyers still
>willing to attempt to get Milat out if they can. Yet, given your
>assesment, Milat is far more likely to reoffend than Bryant.
I couldn't say. I haven't read the reports. I'm only going on the
average mass-murderer and the average serial killer. Certainly I think
Milat would, he enjoyed killing. So did Martin Bryant (at the time),
but I reiterate that without a gun he's a gutless piece of shit. He
had a gun fixation (but it was on the power the gun gave him, without
it he KNEW he was nothing). Milat was addicted to killing and would
have kept going until he was caught. He wouldn't care whether he did
it with a knife, his bare hands, or a gun).
I have heard that Bryant still cocks his hand and points fingers at
the guards in Risdon and says "bang". Whether it's true or just urban
myth I don't know.
>>>>
>>>>>But where were the high profile lawyers to
>>>>>defend him? Out making up mealy mouthed excuses in court to minimise
>>>>>the sentences (as opposed to ensuring they get a fair trial) of
>>>>>rapists, and violent murderers?
>>>>
>>>>Why did John Lewthwaite murder and rape a young girl? Because he
>>>>enjoyed it? <insert your psychiatric report here>.
>>>
>>>Who cares why he did it. He did do it.
>>
>>And he admits it. He also said why he did it. He was homosexual and
>>couldn't deal with it. Why is that do you think?
>
>Sounds like words put to him by a clever defence lawyer to me.
No, he said it in an interview just after he was released.
>
>>Because society told
>>him from the day he was born that homosexuals are freaks and perverts?
>
>Yep, it's all societies fault. Funny how there are about 19,000,000
>other members of this little society who don't react that way.
I didn't say it was society's fault, but in my view it is a
contributing factor to his mental state at the time of the killing. He
wouldn't have been thinking "society has done this to me", he would
have been thinking "I have to prove to myself I'm not homosexual". And
part of the reason for that is society told him from day 1 that
homosexuality was wrong.
>
>>So he gets to the age of 19, sexually charged, and he doesn't know who
>>he is. So, he tries to prove to himself that he's heterosexual by
>>raping a young girl (he didn't mean to kill her at first, but did in
>>the end after he realised he would be recognised).
>
>Yes. A real vicim of circumstances he was. In fact it's the little
>girls fault that she died. If only she hadn't called him by his name -
>she'd probably still be alive today.
He did a horrible thing, he knows it, but that's not what he was
thinking at the time. And why was that? He had something to prove.
That he wasn't what a homosexual, which he thought was wrong due to
what society told him.
>
>>Do you think
>>society is partly to blame for his crimes (even though nobody forced
>>him to do it)? I do.
>
>No.
>
>>Sure, 99.99% of people in similar situations
>>wouldn't do the same thing, but how can you know for sure what's going
>>on inside his head? One thing is for sure. If the whole society comes
>>to terms with the fact that homosexuality is normal and people do not
>>have a choice, these crimes will happen a lot less often.
>
>Funny. All the homosexuals I know claim that it is 100% choice. If you
>dared suggest to them that were born that way, that society made them
>way, or suggest anything other than they are living by their own
>choices, they'd knock your block off.
I'm not saying society made them that way. I'm saying they are what
they are, and it is wrong for society to tell them it's wrong.
stereotype
<sean_...@nospam-hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>stereotype wrote in message <0e45fs4vvindgkeh0...@4ax.com>...
>
>--snip--
>
>>>Who cares why he did it. He did do it.
>>
>>And he admits it. He also said why he did it. He was homosexual and
>>couldn't deal with it. Why is that do you think? Because society told
>>him from the day he was born that homosexuals are freaks and perverts?
>>So he gets to the age of 19, sexually charged, and he doesn't know who
>>he is. So, he tries to prove to himself that he's heterosexual by
>>raping a young girl (he didn't mean to kill her at first, but did in
>>the end after he realised he would be recognised). Do you think
>>society is partly to blame for his crimes (even though nobody forced
>>him to do it)? I do. Sure, 99.99% of people in similar situations
>>wouldn't do the same thing, but how can you know for sure what's going
>>on inside his head? One thing is for sure. If the whole society comes
>>to terms with the fact that homosexuality is normal and people do not
>>have a choice, these crimes will happen a lot less often.
>
>Surely a lot less homosexuals would do the trick also?
trick? sorry, don't understand.
stereotype
wrote:
>
>Sean <sean_...@nospam-hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:q2AI4.2979$5D....@ozemail.com.au...
>>
>> stereotype wrote in message
><0e45fs4vvindgkeh0...@4ax.com>...
>>
>> --snip--
>>
>> >>Who cares why he did it. He did do it.
>> >
>> >And he admits it. He also said why he did it. He was homosexual and
>> >couldn't deal with it. Why is that do you think?
>
>Because he's a sick twisted fuck.
He was sick at the time at the time, yes, he has admitted it. He also
knows why he did it (but didn't at the time).
>
>> > Because society told
>> >him from the day he was born that homosexuals are freaks and perverts?
>> >So he gets to the age of 19, sexually charged, and he doesn't know who
>> >he is.
>
>He lost his wallet and ID?
>
>> > So, he tries to prove to himself that he's heterosexual by
>> >raping a young girl (he didn't mean to kill her at first, but did in
>> >the end after he realised he would be recognised). Do you think
>> >society is partly to blame for his crimes (even though nobody forced
>> >him to do it)?
>
>No. Society didn't do it. The fence post didn't do it. His great-grandmother
>didn't do it. HE did. ONLY him. HE is guilty, no one else.
Sure, no argument there, that's why he was in jail for 25 years. Now
he's out.
>
>> > I do.
>
>Well, you're wrong and foolish, what's your point?
>
>> > Sure, 99.99% of people in similar situations
>> >wouldn't do the same thing, but how can you know for sure what's going
>> >on inside his head?
>
>Who cares? That's the whole point you're missing sonny boy. It doesn't
>MATTER what is going on in your or mine or anyone else's head. Rape and
>murder are WRONG. Always. Forever and ever and ever. Got it? OTHERWISE...if
>you wanna excuse people based on what's going on in their heads, that gives
>me the right to blow away anyone that disagrees with me. I just can't stand
>the emotional trauma don't ya know...
>Moron. Take responsability for your life. It's not society's fault if you do
>fucked up things. It's YOURS and yours alone.
Sure, but that's not the point. My question is this (and you haven't
addressed it yet)... Do you think society has any responsibility at
all for what he did? Keep in mind that he did it to prove to himself
that he wasn't homosexual. Why would he want to do that? My thinking
is the ONLY reason he would want to prove he's not homosexual is
because he thinks it is wrong. And why would he think it was wrong?
Because society told him it was wrong. These are facts, he admitted at
the time WHY HE DID IT, and also in an interview after he was
released. He is not looking for any leniency. I am not looking for any
leniency for him at all. He did not use his homosexuality to try and
get leniency. But now that he has come to terms with his homosexuality
and is happy about himself he is no danger to anyone.
>
>> >One thing is for sure. If the whole society comes
>> >to terms with the fact that homosexuality is normal and people do not
>> >have a choice, these crimes will happen a lot less often.
>
>Bullshit. Scientific American produced a clinical study of 1000 dead
>homosexuals and the examination of their brain clearly showed that the area
>of their brain that deals with sexual imagination was more 'overused' than
>that in heterosexual men. It is also proven that the brain adapts based on
>what we constantly think about, do physically, or train ourself into.
So what? I know how the brain works. maybe they have more sexual
imagination. Big fucking deal. What's that got to do with this thread?
>
>There are a small number of homosexuals that honestly have their hormone and
>even chromosomes screwed up so that they litterally are women in men's
>bodies. A sex change is a useful thing for this small group of people, and I
>do feel for them, their lives must be very difficult. But your garden varied
>homosexual is such largely by choice (brought on by sexual abuse in some
>cases, other abuse in others or just pure choice for yet others, still, how
>YOU react to abuse is up to YOU, no one else, seeing a trend yet?)
That's just a blatant lie. All of it. The latest theory is that
hormone levels in the womb is responsible. Some say it's a region on
the X chromosome Xq28, you getting the trend you dumb cunt? Not
choice. Moron.
>
>In any event, again, your statement that there's nothing 'wrong' with being
>a homosexual because people can't help it, is in itself incriminatory. What
>it says by inference is that if people DID have a choice about it then it
>WOULD be wrong.
Nothing. And you could show me where I said it? Not only blatant
disregard for scientific theory, you also haven't provided any
evidence except your own stupidity. Where did I say that there was
anything wrong with being homosexual? I said they can't help it. And a
lot of the evidence points that way. Some says it's a combination of
gene/environment. What does it matter? The point is they are what they
are. Homosexual. So what? The thread is not about how people become
homosexual. It's about why society tells us it's wrong. And the effect
societal attitude can have on people.
>Personally I couldn't give a rat's ass what people do in the privacy of
>their own homes, but don't go telling me that being a homosexual is
>'natural' it's about as natural as shoving golf-balls up your ass in order
>to sexually stimulate yourself. It AIN'T natural, or normal, and it would
>piss golfers off if you were to suggest it was.
Again, you're offering your own stupidity as proof. PROVE it's not
natural. Prove it's a choice. Or go and stick a golf ball up your
arse.
>
>Besides, we can play it both ways. I'll go along with the "it's their genes"
>BS concerning homosexuals as long as you go along with my "I need to
>physically express myself violently whenever I feel like it" story, because
>it too is in my "genes".
>As is of course, my need to carry a gun.
>Can't have it both ways boyo. Either take responsability for your life or
>admit that everyone can then really do what the fuck they please, which is
>chaos.
>G.
Where did I say people can do what they please? Those sorts of
statements are for libertarian gun nut fuckwits like you (and Martin
Bryant) who shouldn't be let anywhere near firearms.
Brian
>
> Brian wrote in message <38F32A0D...@apex.net.au>...
> >> >>
> >> >> The outrageous travesty of justice that constituted the Martin Bryant
> >> >> 'trial' should
> >> >> be a lasting shame to every citizen of this nation who values 'a fair
> go'
> >> >> and 'equal justice for all before the law'
> >> >> Is this what we have now descended to in this country?
> >> >> Media-controlled show trials? Where did these maggots get their
> >> >> idea of jurisprudence from? North Korea?!
> >> >>
> >> >> "in a nation that unjustly gaols its citizens, the only place for a
> just
> >> man
> >> >> is in gaol"
> >> >
> >> >crimes then?
> >>
> >> If we didn't have the Gun Grab, we wouldn't _need_ mandatory sentencing!
> >
> >the nUFL was, jimbo.
> >
> >> roof/window/door/whatever!
>
> >manslaughter charge, as it should be. You seem to be assuming that
> >simply because someone enters your home without your permission they
> >forfeit all their rights before the law, why?
>
> Yep! Exactly! 'Cos if he's strolling around my living-room at 3a.m. he
> is up to no good...u can be sure of that! After a challenge(and depending on
> how
> he responded to it...unless he agreed to wait quietly for the police!) I
> would
> most certainly unload on him!
By all means, unload your weapon. It will render you less of danger to
yourself, your family and your neighbours.
> >Jimbo, you are one of the sort of people that the nUFL was intended to
> >disarm. The nutters and the loons. You speak and I don't doubt act
> >rather irresponsibly about firarms.
>
> Yr the NUTTER pal! The right to defend yr own life and property goes
> back to English Common Law, the Constitution of 1689, the Magna
> Carta and, before that, the Bible! If you don't like those legal
> precedents....
Excuse me? Care to cite the references for me? I'm well aware of what
the Bill of Rights 1688 and the Magna Carta has to say on the matter and
its not what you claim. In fact, the BoR, in particular makes it clear
that parliament has the ability to regulate the right to own a firearm
and to what purposes it can be put.
> go and live somewhere like Nrth Korea or Burma, where they don't
> have them......along with all the other marxist maniacs!
Excuse me? Apart from the fact that Burma is not a marxist state, in
North Korea, the other example you cite, they are essentially awash,
like all Communists states were, in firearms. Each and every adult male
is a serving member of the armed forces and also a member of the
workers' militia. They have ready access to firearms and weapons of
types and quantities which you'd more than likely cream your pants over,
Jimbo.
> See how you like living in a society where the only people armed are
> the cops and the military...ENJOY!
As I've just mentioned, as usual, like all gun nuts you only see what
agrees with your ideological blinkers, Jimbo.
Michael Simons
wrote:
I still find it strange how some defence lawyers seem to seek out the
high profile cases and do everything they can to either minimise or
totally eliminate the sentences of obviously guilty people. Yet no-one
would defend Bryant.
I think I know the reason - Bryant was caught in the act, no-one could
convince a jury that there was any doubt concerning his guilt. But
still, a clever lawyer could have at least attempted to affect his
sentence on the evidence of his mental state - not because Bryant
deserves any sympathy, but for the sake of consistancy, they do it for
every other scum bag like the two lesso, devil worshipping pair who
bashed and left a NZ tourist to die. Throw away the key I reckon, but
no some goody goody lawyer (probably O'Gorman, probably Boe or some
other turkey) goes into bat for them.
It seems that we're going away form the idea of "reasonable doubt" to
"any doubt". Any doubt, you're free. Look at OJ Simpson. America I
know, but anything that happens in America happens here 5 years later.
Anyway, from one half Dutchman to another, cheers!
regards
Michael Simons
wrote:
>Floyd. wrote in message ...
>>"jimbo" <jim...@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>>news:38f3...@news.alphalink.com.au...
>>> I'v read the 'transcript' Perhaps u'd care to point out exactly where he
>>> _admitted_
>>> to being the Prt Arthur gunman?
>>
>>Of course, everyone who commits any crime, always admits to it - which is
>>why guns should be allowed everywhere.....
>>
>>Keep both feet in your mouth and add some salt.
>
>
>Bryant was a mental defective. Why wouldn't he admit it?
>Also: we see no convincing evidence put to Bryant by the police that
>would establish his guilt......
As a layman, I would have thought that it is obvious that Bryant is
mentally defective.
But I've heard many psychological assesments "proving" that he isn't
mental at all - the people giving these assesments should know,
they're experts.
Regards
Hunter
> >A. Would've saved you a lot of time if I'd been blown up with the hostage.
>
> and this establishes what? Where are the follow-up, detailed questions
> from the police establishing the exact details of the situation......?
> This is an out-of-context statement by the suspect that has no
> validity, without additional verifying material...
If you remember the interview that you have supposedly read you'd know he
torched the car with the belief someone was still locked up in the boot..
> >A. What, what, would, I wouldn't hurt a person in my life.
>
> And he still hasn't.....
Didn't he?
> >A. It was a bad thing.
>
> what has any of this to do with the massacre at Prt Arthur?
> Ok...let's have the detailed list of events pre- and post-
> the car-boot hostage incident.......I'm sure there in the
> transcript somewhere?
> Times? Make of car? Colour of car? Description of hostage?
> Route car took? Whether other people saw car? Method of
> tying person up? Noise person made? Any resistance offered by
> person? &c &c....u know! The type of detailed, _in depth_ questions
> that skilled interragators _always_ ask. Or aren't there any
> skilled interragators on the Tsmn Police force? Just clod-hoppers
> with third-grade edumactions who talk in vague generalities?!
Ahhh, now I get it. He's innocent because he didn't get a US show trial... What
crap....
> >Now who would take this as someone who would be the Prt Arthur gunman?
> (besides
> >all the witnesses of course....). I mean just because he kidnaps people at
> >gunpoint on the same day and tries to burn someone alive, there's so many
> >looney's running around it must've been one of the other ones.
>
> Sorry...yr evidence for that....is? (no media bullshit here, thnx!)
His own admission of his actions? He admitted to a lot of the crap, for you to
say someone else did the rest is to say some other lunatic was running around on
the same day at about the same time doing other mad shit... Clearer now?
> >And of course, as a final note, there was his next best thing to an
> admission of
> >guilt.....
> >
> >Q. Mr O'Garey will deal with that.
> >
> >A. Not until me lawyer sees me. I'm sure you'll find the person who caused
> all
> >this. Me.
>
> >Q. I don't find that a very funny statement at all Martin, to be quite
> honest.
>
> >A. You should've put that on recording.
>
> >Q. Ohh it's still recording at this present stage. So that is on recording.
Yeah? Problem with his own words is?
> Yeah....brilliant! A first class admission of guilt that would stand up
> before
> any judge or jury! BTW: ever heard of those nutcases who run into
> police stations and admit to crimes they didn't do?! Hmmmmmmm......
> or perhaps, u wanna deny that happens...in _this_ particular instance,
> anyway!
Oh shit... You didn't read that interview with an open mind did you... He denies
culpability everwhere (oh whoops, sorry, except when he thought the tape had
stopped) he just takes blame for the minor crimes (if you can call them that, I
don't).... Pretty standard for losers that know they're losing... "errr I did do
that bit, but I didn't do that bit"
Hunter
> >I can't stop laughing at Joe Viall's theory that the Port Arthur massacre
> was
> >actually a "UN backed Psy Op"... I mean, this is the bloke you're taking as
> an
> >authority on the subject?
>
> Someone had to expose this atrocity.....the intellectual elite pinheads
> who inhabit our citadels of politically correct FILTH(i.e: the universities)
> certainly wouldn't have had the guts to do it....neither would a worthless
> WANKER like u!
Mate, I hate political correctness, but I now have to say you're worse.
Politically correct morons don't have a clue, are going to fuck this world, but
at least have good intentions as misguided as they are. You're just a fucking
hate everyone moron, the sort of person who's been fucking this world since the
stoneage. And I'll fight you, the politically correct ivory tower league, and
anyone else that wants to fuck with Australia, as you are definately doing with
your crap. You believe this conspiracy theory crap? You need your dose of the
X-Files dropped.....
> >I notice this Joe Vialls dude is into a lot of other conspiracy theories as
> well
> >from a quick search....Cancer conspiracies, conspiracies to do with the
> shooting
> >of that police woman from a certain embassy, conspiracies to do with secret
> >towers navigating nuclear subs, CIA in the oil trade conspiracies, Gulf War
> >conspiracies, The Lockerbie bombing trial conspiracies etc.
>
> >Ahhh well, at least I liked the article on the growth and propagation of
> the
> >Bryant conspiracy theory at:
> >http://www.smh.com.au/news/9809/12/text/features4.html
>
> Wotz ya point? Conspiracies don't happen?
They most definately do. You're living proof.
> How many instances of
> conspiracy do you want from the historical record to refute that
> stoopid notion? Disprove, the assertions, bozo.......and get rid
> of those straw men!
a> Learn to spell
b> I bet you reckon Elvis is still alive too. There's a difference between
conspiracy and paranoia.
c> I reckon you're one of those green left scum trying to give a bad name to
people who are legitimately fighting for their rights. I notice you're doing
your best to rip apart the credibility of sane gun owners.....
jimbo
>jimbo wrote:
>
>> >A. Would've saved you a lot of time if I'd been blown up with the
hostage.
>>
>> and this establishes what? Where are the follow-up, detailed questions
>> from the police establishing the exact details of the situation......?
>> This is an out-of-context statement by the suspect that has no
>> validity, without additional verifying material...
>If you remember the interview that you have supposedly read you'd know he
>torched the car with the belief someone was still locked up in the boot..
...or wuz that 'words put into his mouth' by the cops? An old technique
> >A. What, what, would, I wouldn't hurt a person in my life.
>>
>> And he still hasn't.....
>
>Didn't he?
>> >A. It was a bad thing.
>>
>> what has any of this to do with the massacre at Prt Arthur?
>> Ok...let's have the detailed list of events pre- and post-
>> the car-boot hostage incident.......I'm sure there in the
>> transcript somewhere?
>> Times? Make of car? Colour of car? Description of hostage?
>> Route car took? Whether other people saw car? Method of
>> tying person up? Noise person made? Any resistance offered by
>> person? &c &c....u know! The type of detailed, _in depth_ questions
>> that skilled interragators _always_ ask. Or aren't there any
>> skilled interragators on the Tsmn Police force? Just clod-hoppers
>> with third-grade edumactions who talk in vague generalities?!
>Ahhh, now I get it. He's innocent because he didn't get a US show trial...
What
>crap....
No....he's innocent until _PROVEN_ guilty.
Thatz called THE PRESUMPTION of INNOCENCE!
Itz worked for about the last 400 years under the Westminster(and similar)
systems.
>> >Now who would take this as someone who would be the Prt Arthur gunman?
>> (besides
>> >all the witnesses of course....). I mean just because he kidnaps people
at
>> >gunpoint on the same day and tries to burn someone alive, there's so
many
>> >looney's running around it must've been one of the other ones.
>>
>> Sorry...yr evidence for that....is? (no media bullshit here, thnx!)
>
>His own admission of his actions? He admitted to a lot of the crap, for you
to
>say someone else did the rest is to say some other lunatic was running
around on
>the same day at about the same time doing other mad shit... Clearer now?
Yeh itz crystal clear that....[i]Bryant wasn't involved in Prt Arthur;
[ii]there was more
than one person involved with the incident and [iii]evidence has been
'covered up'
Naturally, u haven't checked the relevant material at.....
http://www.overflow.net.au/~nedwood/portarthur.html.
>> >And of course, as a final note, there was his next best thing to an
>> admission of
>> >guilt.....
>> >
>> >Q. Mr O'Garey will deal with that.
>> >
>> >A. Not until me lawyer sees me. I'm sure you'll find the person who
caused
>> all
>> >this. Me.
>>
>> >Q. I don't find that a very funny statement at all Martin, to be quite
>> honest.
>>
>> >A. You should've put that on recording.
>>
>> >Q. Ohh it's still recording at this present stage. So that is on
recording.
>Yeah? Problem with his own words is?
nothing...the problem is: the questions that _weren't_ asked and
_should have been asked_ by any skilled interragators worth their salt!
But, of course, they knew they didn't have to bother with all that boring
detail(you know...the detail that usually goes hand in glove with most
homicide cases) because they:[i]already had their patsy and
[ii]knew there wasn't going to be a trial anyway!
>> Yeah....brilliant! A first class admission of guilt that would stand up
>> before
>> any judge or jury! BTW: ever heard of those nutcases who run into
>> police stations and admit to crimes they didn't do?! Hmmmmmmm......
>> or perhaps, u wanna deny that happens...in _this_ particular instance,
>> anyway!
>
>Oh shit... You didn't read that interview with an open mind did you... He
denies
>culpability everwhere (oh whoops, sorry, except when he thought the tape
had
>stopped) he just takes blame for the minor crimes (if you can call them
that, I
>don't).... Pretty standard for losers that know they're losing... "errr I
did do
>that bit, but I didn't do that bit"
Ho Hum! Yes....._I_ assasinated JFK; _I_ did the Hilton bombing;
_I_ helped Ivan Milat........sorry: _detail_ is wot makes or breaks a case
_not_ 'admissions'
jimbo
>jimbo wrote:
>>
>> Brian wrote in message <38F32A0D...@apex.net.au>...
>> >jimbo wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Brian wrote in message <38F2661B...@apex.net.au>...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The outrageous travesty of justice that constituted the Martin
Bryant
>> >> >> 'trial' should
>> >> >> be a lasting shame to every citizen of this nation who values 'a
fair
>> go'
>> >> >> and 'equal justice for all before the law'
>> >> >> Is this what we have now descended to in this country?
>> >> >> Media-controlled show trials? Where did these maggots get their
>> >> >> idea of jurisprudence from? North Korea?!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "in a nation that unjustly gaols its citizens, the only place for a
>> just
>> >> man
>> >> >> is in gaol"
>> >> >
>> >> >crimes then?
>> >>
>> >> If we didn't have the Gun Grab, we wouldn't _need_ mandatory
sentencing!
>> >
>> >Pity reality indicates that mandatory sentencing was introduced before
>> >the nUFL was, jimbo.
>> >
>> >> The burglars could be BLOWN AWAY as soon as they came through the
>> >> roof/window/door/whatever!
>>
>> >And you would then be up on either a murder charge or at least a
>> >manslaughter charge, as it should be. You seem to be assuming that
>> >simply because someone enters your home without your permission they
>> >forfeit all their rights before the law, why?
>>
>> Yep! Exactly! 'Cos if he's strolling around my living-room at 3a.m. he
>> is up to no good...u can be sure of that! After a challenge(and depending
on
>> how
>> he responded to it...unless he agreed to wait quietly for the police!) I
>> would
>> most certainly unload on him!
>
>By all means, unload your weapon. It will render you less of danger to
>yourself, your family and your neighbours.
It'll be unloaded all right...from the _business_ end!
The only danger me, my family and my neighbours are concerned
with is the current epidemic of pscychotic drugged-out thugs that has
emerged from the wood-work since the Gun Grab and are now
afflicting this nation!
>> >Jimbo, you are one of the sort of people that the nUFL was intended to
>> >disarm. The nutters and the loons. You speak and I don't doubt act
>> >rather irresponsibly about firarms.
>>
>> Yr the NUTTER pal! The right to defend yr own life and property goes
>> back to English Common Law, the Constitution of 1689, the Magna
>> Carta and, before that, the Bible! If you don't like those legal
>> precedents....
>
>Excuse me? Care to cite the references for me? I'm well aware of what
>the Bill of Rights 1688 and the Magna Carta has to say on the matter and
>its not what you claim. In fact, the BoR, in particular makes it clear
>that parliament has the ability to regulate the right to own a firearm
>and to what purposes it can be put.
The relevant clause from th 1689[sic] Bill is:
"That the subjects which are protestants, may have arms
for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law."
This has since been clarified by various legal personalities(amongst them
Sir William Blackstone, of 'Blackstone's Commentaries' fame) to
affirm the right of citizens to possess arms. At a later stage, Caflicks
were also allowed to possess arms(providing they did not intend
planning seditious activities....in the wake of such incidents as
Guy Fawkes)
http://www.dvc.org.uk/johnny/dunblane/munday.html.
********************************************
[I extract the relevant pssg for brevity!]
Perhaps the Home Office forgot the Bill of Rights because the
arms clause appears at first sight to be hedged about qualification. It
declares:
"That the Subjects that are Protestants, may have Arms for their Defence
suitable
to their Condition, and as allowed by Law". Upon investigation, however, the
three apparent caveats prove insubstantial. The right of Protestants to arms
was
affirmed because it was they who had been disarmed "contrary to the Law"
after
the Restoration: but the right to defensive weapons was not restricted to
them, as
was made clear by another Act of the same year recalling the same right for
Catholics.(5)
The wording suitable to their condition reflected the Bill of Rights' appeal
to ancient
usage (for the Bill did not seek to create rights, but to reaffirm
immemorial principles
of common law): the context was that of the assizes of arms which served as
a
sort of martial mediaeval income tax, indexing the weaponry the state could
levy from the subject. Constitutional commentary and case law would later
confirm that this condition could not be
construed to exclude "people in the ordinary class of life" (Rex v.
Dewhurst, 1820). The third
apparent caveat in the clause, permitting arms as are allowed by Law, was
perhaps
no constraint at all: in affirming the heritage of common law, the Bill of
Rights reiterated
a refrain of complaints against misdeeds "contrary to Law" or "against the
Law",
and "according to Law" should arguably be seen in the same linguistic
context. If it
was a caveat at all, it was a circumstantial one relating to the laws
against
poaching and bearing arms in terrorem populi, to terrorise the public.(6)
Again,
case law upheld the Bill of Rights provision in both these contexts. In the
eighteenth century,
for instance, we find repeatedly that the possession of a dog can be held
prima facie
as evidence of intent to poach, whereas a gun could be possessed under like
circumstances legitimately for self defence;(7) and even an Irishman
carrying a
loaded revolver in the street in 1914 was ruled not to be committing an
offence in terrorem populi.(8)
***Rfrncs***
5 W & M Sess. 1, c.15.
6 Statute of Northampton 1328.
7 7Cf. Rex v. Filer, 1722; Bluet v. Needs, 1736; Rex v. Gardner, 1739;
Malloch v.Eastly, 1744; Wingfield v. Stratford, 1752; Rex v.Thompson,
1787.
8 Rex v. Smith, 1914; cf. Rex v. Dewhurst, 1820, & Rex v. Meade, 1903.
************************************************************************
For a complete listing of the 1689[sic] Bill:
http://lockstockandbarrel.org/Documents/bill_of_rights_1689.htm.
Magna Carta:
http://lockstockandbarrel.org/Documents/magna_carta.htm.
>> go and live somewhere like Nrth Korea or Burma, where they don't
>> have them......along with all the other marxist maniacs!
>Excuse me? Apart from the fact that Burma is not a marxist state, in
>North Korea, the other example you cite, they are essentially awash,
>like all Communists states were, in firearms. Each and every adult male
>is a serving member of the armed forces and also a member of the
>workers' militia. They have ready access to firearms and weapons of
>types and quantities which you'd more than likely cream your pants over,
>Jimbo.
Well....now! I'd say Burma and Nrth Korea demonstrate yet _another_
good reason for civilian firearm ownership: TO PROTECT THOSE
CITIZENS FROM their _SCUMBAG_ guvmints.
It goes without saying, of course, that any Tom, Dick or Hong can
just walk into the corner store and purchase any firearm that
strikes his fancy!
>> See how you like living in a society where the only people armed are
>> the cops and the military...ENJOY!
>As I've just mentioned, as usual, like all gun nuts you only see what
>agrees with your ideological blinkers, Jimbo.
When are u gunna remove _YR_ ideological blinkers, Mr Anti-gun nut?!
jimbo
In all countries that still value the citizens' rights against the THUG and
over the guvmint. Unfortunately, there ain't that many left.
It may or may not go down well in the coroner's report.....but it will
certainly
go down well with a jury of yr peers...as has been demonstrated by the
acquittal rate for such 'offences'. Naturally, u chuck in the straw man
of 'shooting in the back'!
>> How the hell do you know
>>they're not gunna return a few hours later and inflict some more damage?
>
>"I shot him because I *thought* he might come back and kill me."
>Yep, that'd go down well to.
Does...with _juries_, especially when taken _in context_, as in:
if the thug is on yr property at 3a.m. and in yr living-room, to boot
he is there AT HIS OWN RISK!
>>Furthermore, there have been acquittals by juries on just such incidents.
>>We're not talking about someone jumping over yr front fence to get
>>a drink of water at the garden tap. We're talking about someone
>>breaking into yr house when there is a good probability that
>>u are home. Clearly, they are not too concerned about confronting you.
>>And why should they be in these post-Gun Grab days when, even if
>>u happen to own a gun and use it, u'll likely end up in more trouble than
>>the THUG?!
>If you are being threatened (not think you might be in the future) with a
>weapon, or even an unarmed, advancing person, then you should have the
right
>to shoot them.
Tell it to the scumbag pollies......!
>>>>>> Shoot first, ask questions afterwards......if the prick is
>>>>>>wandering
>>>>>>around yr house at 3a.m., itz a fair bet he hasn't come over to borrow
>a
>>>>>cup
>>>>>>of sugar or have a drink of water out of the faucet in yr yard!
>>>>
>>>>>No, but he might be trying to flog your gear without confrontation.
>>>>
>>>>And if he is confronted.....he will try to eliminate you as an
imediment.
>>>>Facts of life these days!
>>
>>>This is hollywood fantasy. Most thieves who are confronted, even by
>>unarmed
>>>occupants/business owners, attempt to flee. Most theives do not want to
>>>escalate their crime above break and enter to any of the following: home
>>>invasion, battery/assault, seriously bodily harm or murder. Because of
>>>that, most do not even carry weapons in Australia.
>>
>>Baloney! How many crims have you confronted?
>Think about it. The majority of these punks are young and looking for
quick
>cash, not murdering a whole family so they can flog your CDs.
Since when has 'being young'(as in 18-25) been a caveat on thuggery?
>> Methinks u don't
>>know wot the hell yr talking about.
>
>You sound like you watch too much Seagal.
who?
>>>It is nonsense to assume that every thief is a calculating deadly weapon,
>>>just waiting to stumble upon a home owner and then immediately kill all
>the
>>>witnesses.
>>
>>Who said anything about 'killing all the witnesses'?
>You did, "he will try to eliminate you as an imediment". He will more
>likely run away, then risk being done for murder or serious assault.
[...impediment] Not any more! I'm afraid yr living in a dream world, or
a time warp. The thugs out there these days are mean, vicious and
homicidal. Blame it on society, political correctness, progressive
edumacation,
violent vids, drugz, whatever.......the fact is: thatz the WAY it IS!
>> Wot they will do,
>>however,
>>is to inflict serious damage on _u_ or yr loved ones in order to either:
>>[i]facilitate their escape and/or [ii]get the items they came for in the
>>first place
>>to support their druggo habit!
>They will more likely attempt to harm you if you are unarmed. If you have
a
>gun, or even a bat, they are not likely to continue attacking you.
As above: when are u gunna wake up to realities?
(even a gun don't scare 'em these days, because:
[i]it may not be real[guns are getting a bit scarce on the ground!];
[ii]it may not be loaded.....as per onerous storage requirements...or even
have the bolt/breech block inserted and/or
[iii]the thug will anticipate that you will not use it[re: legal
ramifications!])
.....when a burglar invites himself into a house knowing the occupant[s] are
most likely home...then that _IS_ a home invasion. Common sense(not
early '90s action flicks!) demonstrates that the THUG in question will
most likely be armed to a greater or lesser degree.
>A thief is entirely different, preferring to not make contact with anyone
at
>all.
as above.......because of the Gun Grab, burglars are now less concerned
with confronting householders. This agrees with a N° of serious academic
studies done on the subject....by the likes of Lott, Mustard and Kleck.
Thugs are significantly _deterred_ from entering premises when they know
the house-holder:[i]is ARMED(or even likely to be) and [ii]will not
suffer any undue legal sanctions for BLOWING THEM AWAY!
>>and who refuses requests to await the police is certainly not interested
>>in yr health and well-being!
>They're interested in escaping if you have a gun pointed at them!
see above......'ponting guns' at burglars in Oz is now no longer
a common activity!
>>>> All this shooting them in the ankles
>>>>stuff
>>>>is bullshit...
>>>
>>>Who said anything about ankles? You can shoot thighs and shoulders.
>>Outter
>>>parts of the limbs are very hard to hit in a frantic situation.
>>
>>...so are thighs and shoulders. Ever seen an angry, psychotic crim
>>attacking?
>Nope, neither have you (discounting movies).
Sorry...I _HAVE_ Especially around the area where I live.
Therez heapz of 'em! You should try it sometimes....it gives a whole
new perspective to the term 'gun control'!
>>They don't stroll up to you and say: 'howz ya fatha?' They crouch down,
>>utter several loud expletives and CHARGE!
>
>Is this in the criminal handbook as preferred procedure? Come on, this all
>sounds hollywood. The very rare occassion may arise when you have a
>drunken/drug fucked loon attack you while you hold a gun at them. This is
>not normal though. And AGAIN, I've already agreed that it is proper to
>shoot someone who is attacking you, so why persist?
why indeed? It may not be text-book procedure. However, itz an accurate
general description of their behaviour. Naturally, there are variations on
the theme.....but so wot? The point is, unless u are confident in yr martial
arts abilities...you are in _REAL_ trouble in such an incident!
Thugs and crims don't really give a TOSS if they hurt you, and hurt you
badly. N°1: they don't think they're gunna get caught to start with;
N°2: as long as they got what they want, they're not real interested
and N° 3: things like courts, gaol and cop stations hold no fear for
THEM...they look upon it as a mild occupational hazard!
>> Very hard to hit
>>shoulders, thighs, hands, feet, kneecaps and funny-bones in that
situation!
>
>Thighs and shoulders are probably easier to hit then the head, considering
>recoil might bump your shot too high (or wide) and miss entirely.
standard cop procedure is to aim for the greatest body mass...the torso!
Y? Because itz the biggest Target and the easiest to hit!
QED
>>
>>>> haven't got TIME
>>
>>>You do if they are unarmed or they do not have a weapon readied, which is
>>>what I am talking about. I have already agreed that a thief with a
weapon
>>>is a threat, which you should be allowed to shoot.
>>
>>That is, until they pull a weapon out from their pocket, belt, shoe,
>>shoulder holster...whatever. Geeeezzzz! Look! They've got a weapon!
>>Uhhh......BANG! Ahhhh....Too late!
>
>Two things:
>
>1) If a perp does not have a weapon readied and you have a gun trained at
>them, what the hell are you doing while they are pulling out a weapon? At
>least try to be a bit realistic. If a perp goes for a weapon, there is no
>way (unless you're an absolute moron) that they can get their weapon out
>before you pull the trigger.
if u'v got him cornered in a well-lit room and therez no
distractions....sure!
Unfortunately, these things happen UNEXPECTEDLY, sometimes in
the dark and sometimes in an area where there is plenty of room for
ducking and diving......and where there could easily be unexpected
diversions favouring the THUG
>2) If you shoot an unarmed perp (who is not moving on you) because you
>"think" he might have a weapon, you should not have a gun licence.
U don't know what he's doing. The point is: he's _moving_. Maybe
out-the-window. Maybe not. Shooting someone who has sat down,
put their hands on their head/whatever and agreed to await the arrival
of the police is _ILLEGAL_ and _SHOULD BE_ Gun licences don't come
into it! Such an act is a clear-cut case for a charge of murder to be
laid. So...i'm not gunna play yr little politically correct game!
Citizens should:
[i]have free access to most firearms with minimal restrictions;
[ii]have clear-cut rights of self-defence and the right
to own firearms for such purposes
[iii]be able to own firearms to protect them from out-of-control scumbag
guvmints!(or the possibility that a guvmint might go out-of-control....
the price of liberty is eternal vigilance!)
>>>>..if the prick is coming at u at 100ks
>>>>wielding a
>>>>machette with the express intention of decapitation
>>
>>>A rather odd scenario, don't you think? And if this is happening, give
>the
>>>guy two rounds in the chest. If he keeps coming, aim for the head.
>>
>>all too common nowadays.
>
>Not at all. Not in Australia anyway.
'Fraid it is!
>> If not a machette, some other implement....maybe
>>even a GUN. (gun laws don't bother crims, u know......they don't
>>obey laws anyway!)
>If they have a weapon other than a firearm, you issue a warning. If they
>keep their distance, or try to run, you do not shoot them.
The key phrase being: 'try to run' How do you define that?
If they make a general movement towards the window or door?
Is that 'trying to run'? If they start backing away? Is that 'trying to
run'?
If they duck down behind the sofa? Is that trying to run?
>If they have a gun, they may see you first and take aim, at which point,
you
>fire as quickly as possible. If you see them first, you have to yell a
>warning. If they turn to shoot at you, drop them.
Yep!
>But seeing most theives are unarmed in Australia, it's really more of an
>issue for home invasions. Home invaders are armed, and are looking for a
>confrontation.
As above...any 'burglar' who enters a residence knowing the occupants are
home,
is a potential home invader. Since most burglars are now doing this
(or it doesn't bother them whether the occupants are home or not)
they are potential home invaders!
>>>>...u don't pause to
>>>>discuss
>>>>the weather
>>
>>>Huh? You do think about your freedom though, and that will be taken away
>>>from you if you kill someone who is not a threat to you.
>>
>>As above: someone floating around yr living-room or bed-room at
>>3 a.m. who refuses to agree to yr polite request to await the police
>>IS A THREAT to U!
>
>No, they are only a threat if they advance on you. They are NOT a threat
if
>they try and flee (which is the usual case unless they're fucked off some
>substance).
......now par for the course!
>> Sure... u may well lose yr freedom for a short while....
>>until the case gets to trial, or until u get bail, but u will have saved
yr
>>LIFE!
>
>Shooting a fleeing perp doesn't save your life, it will probably ruin it.
>If you have them at gun point and have rung the cops, then three things can
>happen:
>1) They run away (if you shoot them, you're fucked)
cops will charge u regardless....a jury will acquit you!
>2) They stay at bay
cops will charge u regardless....with something, anyway
>3) They attack you (go ahead an pop them).
cops will charge u regardless(as in [1])....a jury will acquit!
>>(u can be pretty confident that no jury in Oz will convict u of such an
>>'offence'....
>>thatz why they've got all these beefed-up penalties for bullshit gun
>>'offences' now...they KNOW THAT!)
>No, you have to be under serious threat. If they are attempting to flee or
>are not attacking you, you will be punished for shooting them. Tell me
>this, if you were held at gunpoint, and all you had was a knife, would you
>jump at the guy with the gun?
NO! But then, I'm not a drugged-out, psychotic THUG who invades
people's homes at 3a.m.
>Probably not, unless you were drug fucked.
yep!
>>>>...thatz why i cited the Laurie Morris case. The prick who
>>>>burgled his
>>>>house was a drugged-out psycho with his drugged-out psycho mates in the
>>>>back-ground egging him on! He was given _TWO_ warnings but kept
>coming....
>>>>intent on murder and mayhem. He got exactly what he deserved!
>>
>>>I agree with you totally. Morris gave him two warnings, which is
probably
>>>more than even I would have allowed. If Morris had shot him without
>giving
>>>warning, than I believe he would have been acting irresponsibly.
>>
>>Morris was charged with attempted murder, amongst other things.
>
>They had to establish that the guy did give warnings though, and that he
was
>in fear of his life (as he was the guy with the gun, and the other guy
>wasn't).
As i said above....the cops will charge you regardless. The politically
correct thugs in the media tried to make out that Morris popped
a defenceless man(who was probably 'backing off'....so much
for the 'leave them alone if they're running away' theory!)
The court transcripts demonstrate OTW! ;-))
>>So, clearly, the politically correct mafia is not interested in the finer
>>points
>>of self-defence. ANYONE who uses a gun to defend their life, property or
>>the lives of others is a CRIMINAL in their myopic eyes!
>If you shoot a fleeing perp, or one that is cornered/surrendered and not
>attacking, then you are a criminal yourself. If you shoot someone who is
>actually attacking you, good on you, you deserve a medal!
same ol', same ol'
jimbo
Ta! For all that.
Perhaps u'd care to peruse this little lot?:
http://www-douzzer.ai.mit.edu:8080/conspiracy.html.
>> >I notice this Joe Vialls dude is into a lot of other conspiracy theories
as
>> well
>> >from a quick search....Cancer conspiracies, conspiracies to do with the
>> shooting
>> >of that police woman from a certain embassy, conspiracies to do with
secret
>> >towers navigating nuclear subs, CIA in the oil trade conspiracies, Gulf
War
>> >conspiracies, The Lockerbie bombing trial conspiracies etc.
>>
>> >Ahhh well, at least I liked the article on the growth and propagation of
>> the
>> >Bryant conspiracy theory at:
>> >http://www.smh.com.au/news/9809/12/text/features4.html
>>
>> Wotz ya point? Conspiracies don't happen?
>
>They most definately do. You're living proof.
hmm......
> How many instances of
>> conspiracy do you want from the historical record to refute that
>> stoopid notion? Disprove, the assertions, bozo.......and get rid
>> of those straw men!
>
>a> Learn to spell
>
>b> I bet you reckon Elvis is still alive too. There's a difference between
>conspiracy and paranoia.
>
>c> I reckon you're one of those green left scum trying to give a bad name
to
>people who are legitimately fighting for their rights. I notice you're
doing
>your best to rip apart the credibility of sane gun owners.....
Ho HUM! listen, SQUIRE, any stuff i'v posted on a.g, a.p.g or t.p.g
criticising the Oz Gun Grab and the attendant wave of violent crime,
has quoted extensively from either official SSAA web-sites or from
material used by them!
(check out the following thread.....
"**NRA gets it _RIGHT_! Howard, Williams et al get it _WRONG_!!**")
Take it up with the SSAA web-masters, not me!
as for "rip[ping] apart the credibility of sane gun owners....." the
politically correct THUGs in the media have done a much better job
of that than i ever could have...wouldn't you agree?!
Chris G
jimbo wrote in message <38f6...@news.alphalink.com.au>...
>>>3 a.m. and refuses to await the police on yr demands than you
>>>_do_ have the right to shoot them.
>>
>>Not in this country. Not in most countries. So if they get up to leave,
>>you're going to shoot them in the back? That would go down real well in
>the
>>coroner's report.
>
>In all countries that still value the citizens' rights against the THUG and
>over the guvmint. Unfortunately, there ain't that many left.
>It may or may not go down well in the coroner's report.....but it will
>certainly
>go down well with a jury of yr peers...as has been demonstrated by the
>acquittal rate for such 'offences'. Naturally, u chuck in the straw man
>of 'shooting in the back'!
Okay, well if you think that is the case, you're more than free to try it.
No jury will let you walk for shooting someone in the back, or someone who
is not attacking you, but by all means, have a go at it. The Coroner's
report will uncover if you did in fact shoot someone in the back.
What is the acquital rate for people using deadly force on unarmed
intruders?
>
>>> How the hell do you know
>>>they're not gunna return a few hours later and inflict some more damage?
>>
>>"I shot him because I *thought* he might come back and kill me."
>
>>Yep, that'd go down well to.
>
>Does...with _juries_, especially when taken _in context_, as in:
>if the thug is on yr property at 3a.m. and in yr living-room, to boot
>he is there AT HIS OWN RISK!
They were trying to make it legal for that to actually be so, but it never
happened (in QLD). You have to be able to prove that you used reasonable
force, and if you use deadly force, that it was reasonable. If you shoot
someone who is unarmed and who is not attacking you, you're fucked. That is
not reasonable.
>
>>>Furthermore, there have been acquittals by juries on just such incidents.
>>>We're not talking about someone jumping over yr front fence to get
>>>a drink of water at the garden tap. We're talking about someone
>>>breaking into yr house when there is a good probability that
>>>u are home. Clearly, they are not too concerned about confronting you.
>>>And why should they be in these post-Gun Grab days when, even if
>>>u happen to own a gun and use it, u'll likely end up in more trouble than
>>>the THUG?!
>
>>If you are being threatened (not think you might be in the future) with a
>>weapon, or even an unarmed, advancing person, then you should have the
>right
>>to shoot them.
>
>Tell it to the scumbag pollies......!
In such cases, the home owner will rarely be called to court (although there
are two instances where this was not so... the police suspected the home
owners did not give proper warning and were not really in danger of their
lives).
>
>>>>>>> Shoot first, ask questions afterwards......if the prick is
>>>>>>>wandering
>>>>>>>around yr house at 3a.m., itz a fair bet he hasn't come over to
borrow
>>a
>>>>>>cup
>>>>>>>of sugar or have a drink of water out of the faucet in yr yard!
>>>>>
>>>>>>No, but he might be trying to flog your gear without confrontation.
>>>>>
>>>>>And if he is confronted.....he will try to eliminate you as an
>imediment.
>>>>>Facts of life these days!
>>>
>>>>This is hollywood fantasy. Most thieves who are confronted, even by
>>>unarmed
>>>>occupants/business owners, attempt to flee. Most theives do not want to
>>>>escalate their crime above break and enter to any of the following:
home
>>>>invasion, battery/assault, seriously bodily harm or murder. Because of
>>>>that, most do not even carry weapons in Australia.
>>>
>>>Baloney! How many crims have you confronted?
>
>>Think about it. The majority of these punks are young and looking for
>quick
>>cash, not murdering a whole family so they can flog your CDs.
>
>Since when has 'being young'(as in 18-25) been a caveat on thuggery?
It isn't, but for the most part, these people are not looking to kill/harm
anyone, and will run if they are spotted.
>
>>> Methinks u don't
>>>know wot the hell yr talking about.
>>
>>You sound like you watch too much Seagal.
>
>who?
>
>>>>It is nonsense to assume that every thief is a calculating deadly
weapon,
>>>>just waiting to stumble upon a home owner and then immediately kill all
>>the
>>>>witnesses.
>>>
>>>Who said anything about 'killing all the witnesses'?
>
>>You did, "he will try to eliminate you as an imediment". He will more
>>likely run away, then risk being done for murder or serious assault.
>
>[...impediment] Not any more! I'm afraid yr living in a dream world, or
>a time warp.
Oh I see, that explains it then.
> The thugs out there these days are mean, vicious and
>homicidal.
LOL! I hope you never own a gun. You're not fit for the responsibility.
> Blame it on society, political correctness, progressive
>edumacation,
>violent vids, drugz, whatever.......the fact is: thatz the WAY it IS!
You know what gets into the papers? Burglaries that go wrong, and
burglaries that are carried out by the few psychos wired on drugs. You know
what does not make it into the papers? All of the burglaries that do not
end up violent. Do you know how many of these there are? In my area, 25%
of homes get robbed within a 3 year period. There are more non-violent
burglaries than there are violent ones, probably 100-fold more.
The problem is, people like you read the papers and go, "Oh my God, all the
robbers are killing everyone these days," because they're the only ones
reported.
>
>>> Wot they will do,
>>>however,
>>>is to inflict serious damage on _u_ or yr loved ones in order to either:
>>>[i]facilitate their escape and/or [ii]get the items they came for in the
>>>first place
>>>to support their druggo habit!
>
>>They will more likely attempt to harm you if you are unarmed. If you have
>a
>>gun, or even a bat, they are not likely to continue attacking you.
>
>As above: when are u gunna wake up to realities?
What country do you live in? Obviously not Australia.
>(even a gun don't scare 'em these days, because:
>[i]it may not be real[guns are getting a bit scarce on the ground!];
Yeah, I can just see most thieves "testing their luck" as to whether your
gun is real or not when it's aimed at them.
>[ii]it may not be loaded.....as per onerous storage requirements...or even
>have the bolt/breech block inserted and/or
Again, are they going to test whether or not you're a responsible gun owner
and keep your ammo in another room? Are they going to assume you haven't
put the ammo in your gun? I doubt it.
>[iii]the thug will anticipate that you will not use it[re: legal
>ramifications!])
Again, too much Hollywood... where the bad guy always talks down someone
with a gun at them, then disarms them etc etc.
No, a break and enter is different to a home invasion. One is violent and
attempted without stealth, while the other is quiet, and generally attempted
with the goal of getting in and out without detection.
> Common sense(not
>early '90s action flicks!) demonstrates that the THUG in question will
>most likely be armed to a greater or lesser degree.
That sentence doesn't make sense?
For a home invader, they would most definitely be armed, most likely one of
them with a gun. A thief may carry a weapon, though it is very unlikely.
>
>>A thief is entirely different, preferring to not make contact with anyone
>at
>>all.
>
>as above.......because of the Gun Grab, burglars are now less concerned
>with confronting householders.
This is bullshit. Gun Grab has done NOTHING against pistols. Do you think
burglars believe that there is no risk now that all of the SA Rifles, pump
action and SA shotties, and FA Assault Rifles are gone?
A pistol will still kill you, in fact, for close quarters combat (apart from
a submachine gun) a pistol is probably what most gun owners would choose to
confront a thief with in the home.
> This agrees with a N° of serious academic
>studies done on the subject....by the likes of Lott, Mustard and Kleck.
>Thugs are significantly _deterred_ from entering premises when they know
>the house-holder:[i]is ARMED(or even likely to be) and [ii]will not
>suffer any undue legal sanctions for BLOWING THEM AWAY!
So then it's not relevant, because a) people are still armed with pistols,
bolt action rifles etc., and b) if your life is in danger, you can blow
someone away.
>>>and who refuses requests to await the police is certainly not interested
>>>in yr health and well-being!
>
>>They're interested in escaping if you have a gun pointed at them!
>
>see above......'ponting guns' at burglars in Oz is now no longer
>a common activity!
Oh yeah, right. "Damn, the Government took away my AR-15, whatever will I
shoot them with?". No one seriously needed those sought of guns for home
protection. The only useful ones were perhaps pump action shotguns
(preferably without a stock).
You're deluded!
>
>>>>> All this shooting them in the ankles
>>>>>stuff
>>>>>is bullshit...
>>>>
>>>>Who said anything about ankles? You can shoot thighs and shoulders.
>>>Outter
>>>>parts of the limbs are very hard to hit in a frantic situation.
>>>
>>>...so are thighs and shoulders. Ever seen an angry, psychotic crim
>>>attacking?
>
>>Nope, neither have you (discounting movies).
>
>Sorry...I _HAVE_ Especially around the area where I live.
But you don't own a gun. What did you do when the machete was flying at
you? Pull out your broadsword and have a sword fight?
>Therez heapz of 'em! You should try it sometimes....it gives a whole
>new perspective to the term 'gun control'!
How did you get the perp out of your house, if they're all such crazy
natural born killers?
>
>>>They don't stroll up to you and say: 'howz ya fatha?' They crouch down,
>>>utter several loud expletives and CHARGE!
>>
>>Is this in the criminal handbook as preferred procedure? Come on, this
all
>>sounds hollywood. The very rare occassion may arise when you have a
>>drunken/drug fucked loon attack you while you hold a gun at them. This is
>>not normal though. And AGAIN, I've already agreed that it is proper to
>>shoot someone who is attacking you, so why persist?
>
>why indeed? It may not be text-book procedure. However, itz an accurate
>general description of their behaviour.
No, it is not accurate of anything but a B-grade action flick script.
> Naturally, there are variations on
>the theme.....but so wot? The point is, unless u are confident in yr
martial
>arts abilities...you are in _REAL_ trouble in such an incident!
No. If you have a gun, you are in control.
>Thugs and crims don't really give a TOSS if they hurt you, and hurt you
>badly. N°1: they don't think they're gunna get caught to start with;
>N°2: as long as they got what they want, they're not real interested
>and N° 3: things like courts, gaol and cop stations hold no fear for
>THEM...they look upon it as a mild occupational hazard!
>
>>> Very hard to hit
>>>shoulders, thighs, hands, feet, kneecaps and funny-bones in that
>situation!
>>
>>Thighs and shoulders are probably easier to hit then the head, considering
>>recoil might bump your shot too high (or wide) and miss entirely.
>
>standard cop procedure is to aim for the greatest body mass...the torso!
>Y? Because itz the biggest Target and the easiest to hit!
>QED
I know this, but if you're not in real threat, you're not going to open fire
on their torso.
>
>>>
>>>>> haven't got TIME
>>>
>>>>You do if they are unarmed or they do not have a weapon readied, which
is
>>>>what I am talking about. I have already agreed that a thief with a
>weapon
>>>>is a threat, which you should be allowed to shoot.
>>>
>>>That is, until they pull a weapon out from their pocket, belt, shoe,
>>>shoulder holster...whatever. Geeeezzzz! Look! They've got a weapon!
>>>Uhhh......BANG! Ahhhh....Too late!
>>
>>Two things:
>>
>>1) If a perp does not have a weapon readied and you have a gun trained at
>>them, what the hell are you doing while they are pulling out a weapon? At
>>least try to be a bit realistic. If a perp goes for a weapon, there is no
>>way (unless you're an absolute moron) that they can get their weapon out
>>before you pull the trigger.
>
>if u'v got him cornered in a well-lit room and therez no
>distractions....sure!
>Unfortunately, these things happen UNEXPECTEDLY,
Yes, but it is your house. You have knowledge of the house, the perp does
not. You get the element of surprise (unlike the movies).
> sometimes in
>the dark and sometimes in an area where there is plenty of room for
>ducking and diving......and where there could easily be unexpected
>diversions favouring the THUG
Yes, sometimes. If they dive in the dark, you'll most likely see them go
down, and if not, I don't know how you found them in the first place is it
is THAT dark. Once they do that, you would assume that they are readying a
weapon, in which case, you take cover . While this is going on, you can
still yell warnings etc. If they only have a knife or something, they're
going to try and make a break for it, though if they come at you, open fire
I say.
>
>>2) If you shoot an unarmed perp (who is not moving on you) because you
>>"think" he might have a weapon, you should not have a gun licence.
>
>U don't know what he's doing. The point is: he's _moving_. Maybe
>out-the-window. Maybe not. Shooting someone who has sat down,
>put their hands on their head/whatever and agreed to await the arrival
>of the police is _ILLEGAL_ and _SHOULD BE_
So we agree.
> Gun licences don't come
>into it! Such an act is a clear-cut case for a charge of murder to be
>laid. So...i'm not gunna play yr little politically correct game!
What has political correctness got to do with anything? Do you understand
what PC means, or do you simply use it as an abusive word to anything you
don't like?
This is a game of responsibility.
>Citizens should:
>[i]have free access to most firearms with minimal restrictions;
They should be subject to past criminal checks and psychological evaluation.
It's the fruitcakes who give gun owners a bad name.
>[ii]have clear-cut rights of self-defence and the right
>to own firearms for such purposes
Yes.
>[iii]be able to own firearms to protect them from out-of-control scumbag
>guvmints!(or the possibility that a guvmint might go out-of-control....
>the price of liberty is eternal vigilance!)
True, though this scenario is quite silly, as the actual benefits would be
outweighed by the losses. Are you American?
>
>>>>>..if the prick is coming at u at 100ks
>>>>>wielding a
>>>>>machette with the express intention of decapitation
>>>
>>>>A rather odd scenario, don't you think? And if this is happening, give
>>the
>>>>guy two rounds in the chest. If he keeps coming, aim for the head.
>>>
>>>all too common nowadays.
>>
>>Not at all. Not in Australia anyway.
>
>'Fraid it is!
You write to sound like an American from a southern country town, and your
perspective of reality seems more akin to a someone from a stereotypical
shit-house ghetto. That's why I ask, because the only crazies that appear
in Australia, are the ones in the papers, who are a small percentage of what
makes up the break and enter type crims.
>
>>> If not a machette, some other implement....maybe
>>>even a GUN. (gun laws don't bother crims, u know......they don't
>>>obey laws anyway!)
>
>>If they have a weapon other than a firearm, you issue a warning. If they
>>keep their distance, or try to run, you do not shoot them.
>
>The key phrase being: 'try to run' How do you define that?
>If they make a general movement towards the window or door?
>Is that 'trying to run'? If they start backing away? Is that 'trying to
>run'?
Yes to the above. Generally, moving away from you (and becoming less of a
threat). The majority would prefer to leave the house and rob someone else,
than either fight you (as you have a gun), or even have a gun fight with you
and win, as in the latter, they will become more eagerly pursued by the
police than they would if they simply ran away. More effort goes into a
homicide investigation that it does a simple break and enter. I've talked
with an ex-con who was caught for break and enters and grand theft auto, and
he said it was common to go into a home unarmed, as the sentence skyrocketed
if you were court breaking and entering with a weapon, compared to being
caught without one.
>If they duck down behind the sofa? Is that trying to run?
No, that is time to take cover.
>
>>If they have a gun, they may see you first and take aim, at which point,
>you
>>fire as quickly as possible. If you see them first, you have to yell a
>>warning. If they turn to shoot at you, drop them.
>
>Yep!
>
>>But seeing most theives are unarmed in Australia, it's really more of an
>>issue for home invasions. Home invaders are armed, and are looking for a
>>confrontation.
>
>As above...any 'burglar' who enters a residence knowing the occupants are
>home,
>is a potential home invader.
Yes, but not in the criminal sense of the word. They're not counted as home
invasions (by the police anyway).
>>
>>No, they are only a threat if they advance on you. They are NOT a threat
>if
>>they try and flee (which is the usual case unless they're fucked off some
>>substance).
>
>......now par for the course!
No, these are simply the ones which make the papers, because they're a more
interesting read.
>
>>> Sure... u may well lose yr freedom for a short while....
>>>until the case gets to trial, or until u get bail, but u will have saved
>yr
>>>LIFE!
>>
>>Shooting a fleeing perp doesn't save your life, it will probably ruin it.
>>If you have them at gun point and have rung the cops, then three things
can
>>happen:
>
>>1) They run away (if you shoot them, you're fucked)
>
>cops will charge u regardless....a jury will acquit you!
A cop should charge you if you shoot a fleeing perp. A jury will not acquit
you unless you can give evidence that you used reasonable force. Using
deadly force on a perp who is trying to leave the scene is not "reasonable"
by any means.
>
>>2) They stay at bay
>
>cops will charge u regardless....with something, anyway
Your problem is that you have a negative view of the Government and law
enforcement. The police will not waste time and resources, if they believe
you acted reasonably. If they find inconsistencies, they will charge you.
>
>>3) They attack you (go ahead an pop them).
>
>cops will charge u regardless(as in [1])....a jury will acquit!
No, they most likely will not press charges, as it is a waste of time.
>
>>>(u can be pretty confident that no jury in Oz will convict u of such an
>>>'offence'....
>>>thatz why they've got all these beefed-up penalties for bullshit gun
>>>'offences' now...they KNOW THAT!)
>
>>No, you have to be under serious threat. If they are attempting to flee
or
>>are not attacking you, you will be punished for shooting them. Tell me
>>this, if you were held at gunpoint, and all you had was a knife, would you
>>jump at the guy with the gun?
>
>NO! But then, I'm not a drugged-out, psychotic THUG who invades
>people's homes at 3a.m.
These people are in the minority! Extreme minority.
>
>>Probably not, unless you were drug fucked.
>
>yep!
>
>>
>>They had to establish that the guy did give warnings though, and that he
>was
>>in fear of his life (as he was the guy with the gun, and the other guy
>>wasn't).
>
>As i said above....the cops will charge you regardless.
I know you said that, but that doesn't mean anything.
> The politically
>correct thugs in the media tried to make out that Morris popped
>a defenceless man(who was probably 'backing off'....so much
>for the 'leave them alone if they're running away' theory!)
>The court transcripts demonstrate OTW! ;-))
But the media swing from side to side. In another case in Rochedale, the
media swapped sides all the time. First they sympathised with the "angel"
of a boy who smashed through this guy's front sliding door with a rock, and
was holding a long stick, and was subsequently shot by the home owner. The
next week, they'd sympathise with the gun owner, showing how proper he
acted. It was a circus. The Corner later reported that the home owner had
due cause to shoot the kid.
>
>>>So, clearly, the politically correct mafia is not interested in the finer
>>>points
>>>of self-defence. ANYONE who uses a gun to defend their life, property or
>>>the lives of others is a CRIMINAL in their myopic eyes!
>
>>If you shoot a fleeing perp, or one that is cornered/surrendered and not
>>attacking, then you are a criminal yourself. If you shoot someone who is
>>actually attacking you, good on you, you deserve a medal!
>
>same ol', same ol'
Chris
Hunter
> >If you remember the interview that you have supposedly read you'd know he
> >torched the car with the belief someone was still locked up in the boot..
>
> ...or wuz that 'words put into his mouth' by the cops? An old technique
The cops weren't there when he kidnapped someone at gunpoint and put him in the
boot, and the cops weren't there when he played "burn baby burn".
> No....he's innocent until _PROVEN_ guilty.
> Thatz called THE PRESUMPTION of INNOCENCE!
Yeah, he went through the trial. He was found guilty.
> Itz worked for about the last 400 years under the Westminster(and similar)
> systems.
And even though it quite often gets it wrong, I think it was right in this case.
> Yeh itz crystal clear that....[i]Bryant wasn't involved in Prt Arthur;
Only to those that worship conspiracy theories.
> [ii]there was more
> than one person involved with the incident and
as above.... The UN backed PsyOp I assume you're talking about? I still laugh
thinking about that lunatic's theory. And people consider him an expert on the
matter.
> [iii]evidence has been
> 'covered up'
> Naturally, u haven't checked the relevant material at.....
> http://www.overflow.net.au/~nedwood/portarthur.html.
Yes I have, and I consider the stuff this Vialls dude writes to be absolute
bullshit. I can knock up a page like that if I get bored, doesn't make any of it
true.
> nothing...the problem is: the questions that _weren't_ asked and
> _should have been asked_ by any skilled interragators worth their salt!
> But, of course, they knew they didn't have to bother with all that boring
> detail(you know...the detail that usually goes hand in glove with most
> homicide cases) because they:[i]already had their patsy and
> [ii]knew there wasn't going to be a trial anyway!
But there was.
> Ho Hum! Yes....._I_ assasinated JFK; _I_ did the Hilton bombing;
> _I_ helped Ivan Milat........
I wouldn't be surprised if Vialls decides that what you're saying is true and
proves your guilt with more of his "scientific proof".
> sorry: _detail_ is wot makes or breaks a case
> _not_ 'admissions'
I think they got enough to prove his guilt. Most people in jail were probably
jailed on less. Or do you propose emptying all prisons and playing anarchy?
Hunter
> Ta! For all that.
> Perhaps u'd care to peruse this little lot?:
> http://www-douzzer.ai.mit.edu:8080/conspiracy.html.
I'm afraid it don't seem to exist.
> Ho HUM! listen, SQUIRE, any stuff i'v posted on a.g, a.p.g or t.p.g
> criticising the Oz Gun Grab and the attendant wave of violent crime,
> has quoted extensively from either official SSAA web-sites or from
> material used by them!
> (check out the following thread.....
> "**NRA gets it _RIGHT_! Howard, Williams et al get it _WRONG_!!**")
>
> Take it up with the SSAA web-masters, not me!
> as for "rip[ping] apart the credibility of sane gun owners....." the
> politically correct THUGs in the media have done a much better job
> of that than i ever could have...wouldn't you agree?!
The politically correct ivory tower league will always try to destroy the
credibility of gun owners, try to make us think that everything that has
happened in history is our direct fault, and generally tell us that it's wrong
to be proud of who and what we are, but that's because none of them live in the
real world. But I also don't think that anyone that takes Vialls seriously is
living in the real world either.
jimbo
>jimbo wrote in message <38f6...@news.alphalink.com.au>...
>>Chris G wrote in message <38f4...@news.iprimus.com.au>...
>>>>
>>>>Sorry.....if someone is illegally in yr living-room or front-bedroom at
>>>>3 a.m. and refuses to await the police on yr demands than you
>>>>_do_ have the right to shoot them.
>>>
>>>Not in this country. Not in most countries. So if they get up to leave,
>>>you're going to shoot them in the back? That would go down real well in
>>the
>>>coroner's report.
>>
>>In all countries that still value the citizens' rights against the THUG
and
>>over the guvmint. Unfortunately, there ain't that many left.
>>It may or may not go down well in the coroner's report.....but it will
>>certainly
>>go down well with a jury of yr peers...as has been demonstrated by the
>>acquittal rate for such 'offences'. Naturally, u chuck in the straw man
>>of 'shooting in the back'!
>
>Okay, well if you think that is the case, you're more than free to try it.
>No jury will let you walk for shooting someone in the back, or someone who
>is not attacking you, but by all means, have a go at it. The Coroner's
>report will uncover if you did in fact shoot someone in the back.
>What is the acquital rate for people using deadly force on unarmed
>intruders?
Naturally, there are no statistics on this. ABS keeps stats from
police reports _only_ They don't follow up trial results, AFAIK.
So, itz left to the independent researcher to troll through various state
court reports. One case that springs directly to mind happened several
years ago(back in the early '90s) near me in West Sunshine, Mlbrn.
A bunch of thugs invaded this bloke's house in broad daylight and started
cutting loose on the fixtures and fittings with sledge-hammers and crowbars;
as well as threatening his wife and daughters with grievous bodily harm.
(it was all over some minor altecation at the local school earlier in the
day)
They then jumped into their ute and started to head off up the driveway.
Meanwhile, the son had returned early from work or something, seen wot
was going on, grabbed a semi-auto shotgun out of the garage and confronted
the gang of scumbags. Since they wouldn't stop, he unloaded a couple of
SGs into the driver's side and snuffed the driver. The cops charged him with
Murder but he was eventually ACQUITTED by a jury!
*Ok: this doesn't fit the bill exactly as the Thugs were _armed_. However,
they were making good their escape and had apparently chucked the
offensive implements into the back of the ute.....so, I guess, u could
technically say they were 'unarmed at the time of the incident'*
>>>> How the hell do you know
>>>>they're not gunna return a few hours later and inflict some more damage?
>>>
>>>"I shot him because I *thought* he might come back and kill me."
>>
>>>Yep, that'd go down well to.
>>
>>Does...with _juries_, especially when taken _in context_, as in:
>>if the thug is on yr property at 3a.m. and in yr living-room, to boot
>>he is there AT HIS OWN RISK!
>
>They were trying to make it legal for that to actually be so, but it never
>happened (in QLD). You have to be able to prove that you used reasonable
>force, and if you use deadly force, that it was reasonable. If you shoot
>someone who is unarmed and who is not attacking you, you're fucked. That
is
>not reasonable.
The key questions here are:[i]all this is happening in a 'panic-type'
situation/
how are you supposed to know whether the thug is actually retreating or
positioning
himself for an onslaught? and [ii]how can it be determined that the thug
hasn't got
a concealed weapon and is about to use it?
>>>>Furthermore, there have been acquittals by juries on just such
incidents.
>>>>We're not talking about someone jumping over yr front fence to get
>>>>a drink of water at the garden tap. We're talking about someone
>>>>breaking into yr house when there is a good probability that
>>>>u are home. Clearly, they are not too concerned about confronting you.
>>>>And why should they be in these post-Gun Grab days when, even if
>>>>u happen to own a gun and use it, u'll likely end up in more trouble
than
>>>>the THUG?!
>>
>>>If you are being threatened (not think you might be in the future) with a
>>>weapon, or even an unarmed, advancing person, then you should have the
>>right
>>>to shoot them.
>>
>>Tell it to the scumbag pollies......!
>
>In such cases, the home owner will rarely be called to court (although
there
>are two instances where this was not so... the police suspected the home
>owners did not give proper warning and were not really in danger of their
>lives).
There u go...itz up to the 'discretion' of the cops. IOW, itz all relative.
U have no guarantee that you will not be charged even if the psycho
was waving a chain-saw around!
<snip>
>>Since when has 'being young'(as in 18-25) been a caveat on thuggery?
>It isn't, but for the most part, these people are not looking to kill/harm
>anyone, and will run if they are spotted.
I beg to differ. Not these days.
<snip>
>>[...impediment] Not any more! I'm afraid yr living in a dream world, or
>>a time warp.
>
>Oh I see, that explains it then.
yep!
>> The thugs out there these days are mean, vicious and
>>homicidal.
>LOL! I hope you never own a gun. You're not fit for the responsibility.
Are u? Wotz it got to do with anything though? Those are
_the facts_ Violent crime has sky-rocketed(especially post Gun Grab);
longer gaol terms are being handed out; crimes of violence are becoming
more frequent and vicious. Hence, the perpertrators are meaner,
more vicious and more homicidal than they used to be.
Want to dispute any of that? Or perhaps you'd care to
live in a slightly-more down-market area and get some
'on the job' experience yrself? Hmmm.......?
When you _have_: come back and say who should own
guns and who shouldn't!
>> Blame it on society, political correctness, progressive
>>edumacation,
>>violent vids, drugz, whatever.......the fact is: thatz the WAY it IS!
>You know what gets into the papers? Burglaries that go wrong, and
>burglaries that are carried out by the few psychos wired on drugs. You
know
>what does not make it into the papers? All of the burglaries that do not
>end up violent. Do you know how many of these there are? In my area, 25%
>of homes get robbed within a 3 year period. There are more non-violent
>burglaries than there are violent ones, probably 100-fold more.
Thatz right.....and u can blame it on the Gun Grab. How many of
those burglaries involved confrontations where the house-holder is
at home? Hmmm....maybe they were just damned lucky!
BTW: you are saying WHAT, exactly? We should just allow
anyone who feels like it to waltz in and waltz out of our
residences at will and take whatever they like...just so long
as they make a clean getaway?
>The problem is, people like you read the papers and go, "Oh my God, all the
>robbers are killing everyone these days," because they're the only ones
>reported.
Do you deny burglaries and other violent crimes have increased?
Get this through your THICK SKULL: when a burglar decides to
burgle a residence and doesn't care if the owner is home or not....
THAT is TANTAMOUNT to a HOME INVASION!
>>>> Wot they will do,
>>>>however,
>>>>is to inflict serious damage on _u_ or yr loved ones in order to either:
>>>>[i]facilitate their escape and/or [ii]get the items they came for in the
>>>>first place
>>>>to support their druggo habit!
>>
>>>They will more likely attempt to harm you if you are unarmed. If you
have
>>a
>>>gun, or even a bat, they are not likely to continue attacking you.
>>
>>As above: when are u gunna wake up to realities?
>What country do you live in? Obviously not Australia.
Clearly u don't! BTW: I don't go by the mainstream
media....I go by the local newspapers and the ABS figures.
They all show _skyrocketing_ violent crime right here in good
ol' Oz! What planet are u living on?!
>>(even a gun don't scare 'em these days, because:
>>[i]it may not be real[guns are getting a bit scarce on the ground!];
>Yeah, I can just see most thieves "testing their luck" as to whether your
>gun is real or not when it's aimed at them.
Why shouldn't they?...unless itz _obviously_ a real one...like an under
and over 12G?
>>[ii]it may not be loaded.....as per onerous storage requirements...or even
>>have the bolt/breech block inserted and/or
>Again, are they going to test whether or not you're a responsible gun owner
>and keep your ammo in another room? Are they going to assume you haven't
>put the ammo in your gun? I doubt it.
itz a possibility.....especially if the punk thinks he's got into the
house without being noticed...
>>[iii]the thug will anticipate that you will not use it[re: legal
>>ramifications!])
>Again, too much Hollywood... where the bad guy always talks down someone
>with a gun at them, then disarms them etc etc.
Yeh...but in the US(most states) u can legally BLOW AWAY a BURGLAR.
Here, u can't! And the THUGS know it!
<snip>
>>most likely home...then that _IS_ a home invasion.
>No, a break and enter is different to a home invasion. One is violent and
>attempted without stealth, while the other is quiet, and generally
attempted
>with the goal of getting in and out without detection.
Nope! A 'burglary' is, by definition, a stealthy entering of premisses
(when the occupant is most likely not at home) for the purposes of
stealing goods. A home invasion is one where the Thug[s] couldn't
give a TOSS if the occupant is home or not.....and, even the commonly
accepted idea of 'home invasions' is not accurate They don't all involve
kicking down the front door.....some involve stealthy entry, with the
thugs being disguised to avoid 'detection' anyway!
>> Common sense(not
>>early '90s action flicks!) demonstrates that the THUG in question will
>>most likely be armed to a greater or lesser degree.
>
>That sentence doesn't make sense?
>For a home invader, they would most definitely be armed, most likely one of
>them with a gun. A thief may carry a weapon, though it is very unlikely.
A 'weapon' qualifies as: knife, gun, crowbar, baseball bat, sawn-off pool
cue,
lump of wood, axe, whatever........a 'thief' may very well be carrying any
of these
>>>A thief is entirely different, preferring to not make contact with anyone
>>at
>>>all.
>>
>>as above.......because of the Gun Grab, burglars are now less concerned
>>with confronting householders.
>This is bullshit. Gun Grab has done NOTHING against pistols. Do you think
>burglars believe that there is no risk now that all of the SA Rifles, pump
>action and SA shotties, and FA Assault Rifles are gone?
Yep! Precisely! Why? Because legal pistol ownership was _always_
miniscule. And involved very onerous storage requirements.
Crims and thugs, OTOH, have _always_ been able to get
pistols/revolvers(it is one of their preferred weapons of choice....
mainly because of the concealability!)
>A pistol will still kill you, in fact, for close quarters combat (apart
from
>a submachine gun) a pistol is probably what most gun owners would choose to
>confront a thief with in the home.
Yeah? Well, unfortunately for yr little argument, most gun owners didn't
_own_ pistols/revolvers. They owned long-arms. The greatest % of
these long-arms are now categorised as 'proscribed'. Sure, some have
since gone out and purchased alternatives. However, the ludicrous storage
requirements and bureaucratic bullshit involved easily sets the thug's
mind at rest regarding confrontations with armed house-holders.
>> This agrees with a N° of serious academic
>>studies done on the subject....by the likes of Lott, Mustard and Kleck.
>>Thugs are significantly _deterred_ from entering premises when they know
>>the house-holder:[i]is ARMED(or even likely to be) and [ii]will not
>>suffer any undue legal sanctions for BLOWING THEM AWAY!
>So then it's not relevant, because a) people are still armed with pistols,
>bolt action rifles etc.,
Nope! As above, pistols/revolvers are thin on the ground...and always have
bin in Oz and the storage/bureaucratic requirments mitigates against people
owning bolt actions(a $400 'safe' required to store a $150 gun...that rules
out a lot of people to start with!). Furthermore, as stated above and
elsewhere
ad nauseum, the PENALTIES for using firearms for self-defence are ONEROUS!
U will ALMOST CERTAINLY be charged if u discharge a firearm at a burglar
or thug! IOW: they're useless!
and b) if your life is in danger, you can blow
>someone away.
Sure u can....but expect to be CHARGED for so doing!
This ain't Kenneshaw Co. Georgia mate!
>>>>and who refuses requests to await the police is certainly not interested
>>>>in yr health and well-being!
>>
>>>They're interested in escaping if you have a gun pointed at them!
>>
>>see above......'ponting guns' at burglars in Oz is now no longer
>>a common activity!
>
>Oh yeah, right. "Damn, the Government took away my AR-15, whatever will I
>shoot them with?". No one seriously needed those sought of guns for home
>protection. The only useful ones were perhaps pump action shotguns
>(preferably without a stock).
Put away yr straw man! Who said anything about AR-15s, AK-47s, SLRs
or anything else? We're talking about semi-auto .22s.....a cheap, reliable
and useful home-defence weapon, and, previously, one of the most popular
and widely owned semi-auto firearms. Now BANNED! A semi-auto is quicker
and easier to operate than a mechanical-action weapon and is ideal
for old-age pensioners, invalids or single mums.....the people who
MOST need them NOW!
>You're deluded!
And yr brain-washed!
<snip>
>>>Nope, neither have you (discounting movies).
>
>>Sorry...I _HAVE_ Especially around the area where I live.
>
>But you don't own a gun. What did you do when the machete was flying at
>you? Pull out your broadsword and have a sword fight?
I didn't say it happened to ME. I said it _happens_, around this
neighbourhood. Yr only alternative these days is to invest in home
security....dead locks, security grills, alarms, whatever....at
considerable expense!
>>Therez heapz of 'em! You should try it sometimes....it gives a whole
>>new perspective to the term 'gun control'!
>How did you get the perp out of your house, if they're all such crazy
>natural born killers?
As above....it hasn't happened to me. But it has happened in
the neighbourhood and to people I _know_.
I don't have to worry about 'getting them out of the house',
because they don't get _in_ in the first place...thnx to the
above-mentioned 'security features'
>>>>They don't stroll up to you and say: 'howz ya fatha?' They crouch down,
>>>>utter several loud expletives and CHARGE!
>>>
>>>Is this in the criminal handbook as preferred procedure? Come on, this
>all
>>>sounds hollywood. The very rare occassion may arise when you have a
>>>drunken/drug fucked loon attack you while you hold a gun at them. This
is
>>>not normal though. And AGAIN, I've already agreed that it is proper to
>>>shoot someone who is attacking you, so why persist?
>>
>>why indeed? It may not be text-book procedure. However, itz an accurate
>>general description of their behaviour.
>No, it is not accurate of anything but a B-grade action flick script.
Yeh? Try hanging around this neck of the woods for long enough and
u'll see 'B-grade action flicks' come to life!
>> Naturally, there are variations on
>>the theme.....but so wot? The point is, unless u are confident in yr
>martial
>>arts abilities...you are in _REAL_ trouble in such an incident!
>No. If you have a gun, you are in control.
Yeahahahhaha....trouble is, hardly anyone's got ONE, nowadays
(except for the THUGS, of course...they can ALWAYS get guns!)
<snip>
>I know this, but if you're not in real threat, you're not going to open
fire
>on their torso.
Itz how 'a real threat' is determined that is the key to it, ain't it?
<snip>
>>if u'v got him cornered in a well-lit room and therez no
>>distractions....sure!
>>Unfortunately, these things happen UNEXPECTEDLY,
>Yes, but it is your house. You have knowledge of the house, the perp does
>not. You get the element of surprise (unlike the movies).
maybe...maybe not! How long does it take a thug to
'case' the average sized house?
>> sometimes in
>>the dark and sometimes in an area where there is plenty of room for
>>ducking and diving......and where there could easily be unexpected
>>diversions favouring the THUG
>Yes, sometimes. If they dive in the dark, you'll most likely see them go
>down, and if not, I don't know how you found them in the first place is it
>is THAT dark. Once they do that, you would assume that they are readying a
>weapon, in which case, you take cover . While this is going on, you can
>still yell warnings etc. If they only have a knife or something, they're
>going to try and make a break for it, though if they come at you, open fire
>I say.
U should stick with the 'house-holder has a gun' scenario. A _knife_
ain't gunna deter most psychos these days A chain-saw _might_, but
who keeps them in the living-room?!
>>>2) If you shoot an unarmed perp (who is not moving on you) because you
>>>"think" he might have a weapon, you should not have a gun licence.
>>
>>U don't know what he's doing. The point is: he's _moving_. Maybe
>>out-the-window. Maybe not. Shooting someone who has sat down,
>>put their hands on their head/whatever and agreed to await the arrival
>>of the police is _ILLEGAL_ and _SHOULD BE_
>So we agree.
......on that, of course! But that wasn't the point. The point was:
[i]thug enters house; [ii]house-holder confronts thug(preferably with
loaded gun); [iii]thug refuses to comply with house-holder's request to
'surrender' and await police;[iv]thug make various indeterminate
movements....
maybe escaping, maybe not; [v]householder gives thug final warning;
[vi]thug is moving to another area of the house....window, door,other side
of room, whatever.....[vii]householder shoots Thug.
>> Gun licences don't come
>>into it! Such an act is a clear-cut case for a charge of murder to be
>>laid. So...i'm not gunna play yr little politically correct game!
>What has political correctness got to do with anything? Do you understand
>what PC means, or do you simply use it as an abusive word to anything you
>don't like?
I'm quite aware of what it is. It could be best described as 'cultural
marxism'
It springs directly from a mish-mash of philosophical bullshit called
'post-modernism' One of its aims is to overturn all the traditional
concepts of morals, ethics, religion and rights...u know...all those
sort of rights that spring from the traditional Xian European heritage
and which are described so well in the 1688 Bill of Rights, US Constitution
and
the Magna Carta.
>This is a game of responsibility.
Sorry: on my own property, _I_ am responsible for what goes on.
The guvmint stops at MY front gate. End of story. Thatz another one
of those traditional rights that goes WAYyyyyyyy back to Magna Carta
and beyond....itz called 'controlling Big Guvmint'
>>Citizens should:
>>[i]have free access to most firearms with minimal restrictions;
>They should be subject to past criminal checks and psychological
evaluation.
'psychological evalution'....how the hell do you define that.
Most 'psychs' need 'evaluation' themselves.
Past criminal checks are pointless anyway. Crims will get
guns regardless!
>It's the fruitcakes who give gun owners a bad name.
Nope...itz the politically correct media mafia that gives gun owners
a bad name!
>>[ii]have clear-cut rights of self-defence and the right
>>to own firearms for such purposes
>
>Yes.
[.......] And such rights currently do not exist
>>[iii]be able to own firearms to protect them from out-of-control scumbag
>>guvmints!(or the possibility that a guvmint might go out-of-control....
>>the price of liberty is eternal vigilance!)
>True, though this scenario is quite silly, as the actual benefits would be
>outweighed by the losses. Are you American?
Check the facts......every nation that has been inflicted with tryrannical
bullshit this century and suffered mass murders/genocides(the _real_
psychos and mass killers are GUVMINTS...._NOT_ the 'lone/psycho
gunman scenario') has, almost universally, been DIS-ARMED first..
USSR, China, Nrth Korea, Rwanda, Sudan...take yr pick!
<snip>
>>>Not at all. Not in Australia anyway.
>>
>>'Fraid it is!
>
You write to sound like an American from a southern country town, and your
>perspective of reality seems more akin to a someone from a stereotypical
>shit-house ghetto. That's why I ask, because the only crazies that appear
>in Australia, are the ones in the papers, who are a small percentage of
what
>makes up the break and enter type crims.
check the ABS figures. I call it as I see it. U oughta know by now that
I ain't a friggin Yank! Are you slow or just stoopid?! Do you think i'd
be wasting all this time and energy ranting and raving about Gun Grabbing
and sky-rocketing violent crime rates in Oz if i could just go down the
local
hardware store and purchase a .45 ACP?!
>>>> If not a machette, some other implement....maybe
>>>>even a GUN. (gun laws don't bother crims, u know......they don't
>>>>obey laws anyway!)
>>
>>>If they have a weapon other than a firearm, you issue a warning. If they
>>>keep their distance, or try to run, you do not shoot them.
>>
>>The key phrase being: 'try to run' How do you define that?
>>If they make a general movement towards the window or door?
>>Is that 'trying to run'? If they start backing away? Is that 'trying to
>>run'?
>
>Yes to the above. Generally, moving away from you (and becoming less of a
>threat).
THatz an almost indeterminate qualification....subject to all sorts of
caveats in the particular circumstances. As discussed, at length,
above!
>The majority would prefer to leave the house and rob someone else,
>than either fight you (as you have a gun), or even have a gun fight with
you
>and win, as in the latter, they will become more eagerly pursued by the
>police than they would if they simply ran away. More effort goes into a
>homicide investigation that it does a simple break and enter. I've talked
>with an ex-con who was caught for break and enters and grand theft auto,
and
>he said it was common to go into a home unarmed, as the sentence
skyrocketed
>if you were court breaking and entering with a weapon, compared to being
>caught without one.
not in Oz it don't....._u_ must be a Yank!
>>If they duck down behind the sofa? Is that trying to run?
>
>No, that is time to take cover.
....Not if they reappear 2s later wielding a weapon it aint!
>>>If they have a gun, they may see you first and take aim, at which point,
>>you
>>>fire as quickly as possible. If you see them first, you have to yell a
>>>warning. If they turn to shoot at you, drop them.
>>
>>Yep!
>>
>>>But seeing most theives are unarmed in Australia, it's really more of an
>>>issue for home invasions. Home invaders are armed, and are looking for a
>>>confrontation.
>>
>>As above...any 'burglar' who enters a residence knowing the occupants are
>>home,
>>is a potential home invader.
>Yes, but not in the criminal sense of the word. They're not counted as
home
>invasions (by the police anyway).
The point is: they can easily assume all the _characteristics_ of a
home invasion when the thug enters with that attitude. So, itz a mere
tecnical difference. A burglary can become an 'aggravated burglary'
Thatz identical to a 'home invasion' for all intents and purposes.
>>>No, they are only a threat if they advance on you. They are NOT a threat
>>if
>>>they try and flee (which is the usual case unless they're fucked off some
>>>substance).
>>
>>......now par for the course!
>No, these are simply the ones which make the papers, because they're a more
>interesting read.
...and many don't make the papers. So, there's more than you know out there!
>>>> Sure... u may well lose yr freedom for a short while....
>>>>until the case gets to trial, or until u get bail, but u will have saved
>>yr
>>>>LIFE!
>>>
>>>Shooting a fleeing perp doesn't save your life, it will probably ruin it.
>>>If you have them at gun point and have rung the cops, then three things
>can
>>>happen:
>>
>>>1) They run away (if you shoot them, you're fucked)
>>
>>cops will charge u regardless....a jury will acquit you!
>
>A cop should charge you if you shoot a fleeing perp. A jury will not
acquit
>you unless you can give evidence that you used reasonable force. Using
>deadly force on a perp who is trying to leave the scene is not "reasonable"
>by any means.
*I agree: a cop will charge you. At least in Oz. In fact, they'll charge u
even
if u shoot an _armed_ perp(even if he's got a gun!)
*I disagree: a jury will _not_ convict you...especially if the thug's record
is brought up(which, of course, it usually is). I cite the West Sunshine
case mentioned above as similar enough to qualify for a jury acquittal
(of course, that doesn't mean that a jury will _never_ convict you of such
an offence....you could have the mis-fortune of a bad lawyer,
concocted forensic evidence, lying witnesses...whatever)
>>>2) They stay at bay
>>
>>cops will charge u regardless....with something, anyway
>
>Your problem is that you have a negative view of the Government and law
>enforcement. The police will not waste time and resources, if they believe
>you acted reasonably. If they find inconsistencies, they will charge you.
Nope! Not in Oz! Remember Laurie Morris? That was clear cut!
All this shit is POLITICAL now-a-days, thatz why. Occasionally,
the Director of Public Prosecutions may over-ride the cops and
drop the charges(issue a nolle prosequi...a No Bill) Where guns
are involved, however, that tends not to happen these days!
Most likely, u'll have to go all the way to trial by jury(ultimately,
our only guarantee of liberty in this shitpot country now) to
get justice!
>>>3) They attack you (go ahead an pop them).
>>
>>cops will charge u regardless(as in [1])....a jury will acquit!
>No, they most likely will not press charges, as it is a waste of time.
With guns: they will. As above, the DPP _may_ drop the charges
if it is _very _ clear cut and a jury acquittal is almost a 100% certainty.
OTW: they will NOT. Furthermore, they may well fling some of these
beefed-up 'firearm offences' charges at you. And the penalties for
those are now no longer _LIGHT_
>>>>(u can be pretty confident that no jury in Oz will convict u of such an
>>>>'offence'....
>>>>thatz why they've got all these beefed-up penalties for bullshit gun
>>>>'offences' now...they KNOW THAT!)
>>
>>>No, you have to be under serious threat. If they are attempting to flee
>or
>>>are not attacking you, you will be punished for shooting them. Tell me
>>>this, if you were held at gunpoint, and all you had was a knife, would
you
>>>jump at the guy with the gun?
>>
>>NO! But then, I'm not a drugged-out, psychotic THUG who invades
>>people's homes at 3a.m.
>These people are in the minority! Extreme minority.
Hahhahah...not where I live they ain't! They're as thick as flies
around a cow's arse on a hot summer's day!
>>>Probably not, unless you were drug fucked.
>>
>>yep!
>>
>>>
>>>They had to establish that the guy did give warnings though, and that he
>>was
>>>in fear of his life (as he was the guy with the gun, and the other guy
>>>wasn't).
>>
>>As i said above....the cops will charge you regardless.
>I know you said that, but that doesn't mean anything.
It means this: u'll be _charged_. There's bin enough such
cases over recent years to justify that assertion.
>> The politically
>>correct thugs in the media tried to make out that Morris popped
>>a defenceless man(who was probably 'backing off'....so much
>>for the 'leave them alone if they're running away' theory!)
>>The court transcripts demonstrate OTW! ;-))
>
>But the media swing from side to side. In another case in Rochedale, the
>media swapped sides all the time. First they sympathised with the "angel"
>of a boy who smashed through this guy's front sliding door with a rock, and
>was holding a long stick, and was subsequently shot by the home owner. The
>next week, they'd sympathise with the gun owner, showing how proper he
>acted. It was a circus. The Corner later reported that the home owner had
>due cause to shoot the kid.
Don't know that particular case. There have been similar ones here though.
In most cases, the media(_particularly_ the electronic media) was foaming
at the mouth about 'gun nuts' Ultimately, the bloke in question was
acquitted
by a jury(familiar with the facts, instructed in the law and capable of
making
sane and rational decisions!) In fact, the one I'm thinking of happened in
the Mlbrn area....Clifton Hill/Northcote about 10 or so years ago.....
the bloke owned a toy store and teenage thugs had been breaking into it
over a period of time. The bloke eventually got sick of it, got his .22
semi-auto
from upstairs(he lived above the shop) and plugged the teenage thugs;
not once but on two different occasions(from memory!) He was acquitted
both times!
<snip>
Chris G
jimbo wrote in message <38f7...@news.alphalink.com.au>...
>*Ok: this doesn't fit the bill exactly as the Thugs were _armed_. However,
>they were making good their escape and had apparently chucked the
>offensive implements into the back of the ute.....so, I guess, u could
>technically say they were 'unarmed at the time of the incident'*
I also have a case that supports your side of the argument, and I only
remember it because it was quite odd. A home owner chased a thief out of
his home, and warned the guy to drop the stolen items. The guy kept running
across the street, so this bloke shot him in the back with his shotgun,
however, the rounds were actually salt rounds. A salt round up close will
really mash you, but seeing this bloke was over the street, it merely
knocked the wind out of him. Subsequently, the cops didn't bother pressing
charges.
These kind of cases are not really that common though (it's good to know
that sometimes, the courts take the side of the home owner). I'm not sure I
agree with the guy shooting at fleeing thugs though, and then killing one of
them. But hey, if your house has just been ripped up, you'd probably go
nuts with a gun.
The above was not a theft... it was a home invasion with the intent of
terror and causing harm - quite different to a break and enter.
>>
>>They were trying to make it legal for that to actually be so, but it never
>>happened (in QLD). You have to be able to prove that you used reasonable
>>force, and if you use deadly force, that it was reasonable. If you shoot
>>someone who is unarmed and who is not attacking you, you're fucked. That
>is
>>not reasonable.
>
>The key questions here are:[i]all this is happening in a 'panic-type'
>situation/
>how are you supposed to know whether the thug is actually retreating or
>positioning
>himself for an onslaught?
Whatever decision you make, you have to be sure that when you retell the
story in court or to the police, that you were in fact fearing for your
life. I would guess though, that if you allowed the perp to flee, you don't
just turn you back and whistle a merry tune as you go back to bed. You'd
follow the perp with your gun trained on him, to make sure he was out of
your home.
> and [ii]how can it be determined that the thug
>hasn't got
>a concealed weapon and is about to use it?
That is the point of owning a gun - to take control of a situation. If you
have the gun, and you keep a clear line of sight on the target, then they
cannot realistically pull out a weapon and attack you first. Of course,
it's easier said than done, but I do not think I would simply shoot someone
because they "may" have a weapon on them. When at gunpoint, it would be
safest to command they put their hands on their head and make slow
movements.
It is really up to the individual, but just remember you have to take your
chances with the police, the coroner, and the jury.
Chris
Chris G
>there
>>are two instances where this was not so... the police suspected the home
>>owners did not give proper warning and were not really in danger of their
>>lives).
>
>There u go...itz up to the 'discretion' of the cops.
That's correct. They are, afterall, trying to enforce the law. The law
states that you can only use reasonable force.
> IOW, itz all relative.
>U have no guarantee that you will not be charged even if the psycho
>was waving a chain-saw around!
>
><snip>
>
>>>Since when has 'being young'(as in 18-25) been a caveat on thuggery?
>
>>It isn't, but for the most part, these people are not looking to kill/harm
>>anyone, and will run if they are spotted.
>
>I beg to differ. Not these days.
So, in your dream world, 80% of break and enters are committed by violent
people who would rather kill/harm the occupants than escape/make off with
the loot?
Your problem is that you are mixing up home invasions (which are all aimed
at being violent) with break and enters. The latter does not seek a
confrontation, and will more likely run if spotted than "fight for the
loot".
>
>>> The thugs out there these days are mean, vicious and
>>>homicidal.
>
>>LOL! I hope you never own a gun. You're not fit for the responsibility.
>
>Are u? Wotz it got to do with anything though? Those are
>_the facts_
That you've made up.
> Violent crime has sky-rocketed(especially post Gun Grab);
Show me your statistics. The ABS reports:
Break Ins 1993: 4.4%, 1998: 5.0%.
Attempted Break Ins 1993: 3.1%, 1998: 3.2%
These are the crimes we are talking about. Why are you talking about
violent crimes? Oh that's right, you think all break and enters are
violent. Even if they were violent, can you show me where they have
"skyrocketed"?
(http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/c311215.NSF/6718888106e6a09bca2567d0001af2
de/8ab53dc7c24e6971ca2567220072e98d)
>longer gaol terms are being handed out; crimes of violence are becoming
>more frequent and vicious.
Crimes of violence have no bearing on break and enters, unless it is one of
the few that turn violent, so your point is not valid.
> Hence, the perpertrators are meaner,
Not for simple break and enters. Violent crime covers a lot of different
crimes, and break and enters are seldom violent.
>more vicious and more homicidal than they used to be.
>Want to dispute any of that?
I just did.
> Or perhaps you'd care to
>live in a slightly-more down-market area and get some
>'on the job' experience yrself? Hmmm.......?
So you're a ghetto person, eh? Here's a hint: move. If your life is in
SUCH danger, move.
>When you _have_: come back and say who should own
>guns and who shouldn't!
>
>>> Blame it on society, political correctness, progressive
>>>edumacation,
>>>violent vids, drugz, whatever.......the fact is: thatz the WAY it IS!
>
>>You know what gets into the papers? Burglaries that go wrong, and
>>burglaries that are carried out by the few psychos wired on drugs. You
>know
>>what does not make it into the papers? All of the burglaries that do not
>>end up violent. Do you know how many of these there are? In my area, 25%
>>of homes get robbed within a 3 year period. There are more non-violent
>>burglaries than there are violent ones, probably 100-fold more.
>
>Thatz right.....and u can blame it on the Gun Grab.
Err, this was 1992-1995. Here's a fact that may astound you: crime existed
before they took away assault rifles. Another fact: you do not need a semi
auto rifle to kill someone.
> How many of
>those burglaries involved confrontations where the house-holder is
>at home? Hmmm....maybe they were just damned lucky!
>BTW: you are saying WHAT, exactly? We should just allow
>anyone who feels like it to waltz in and waltz out of our
>residences at will and take whatever they like...just so long
>as they make a clean getaway?
If I am saying that, then you must be saying that anyone who commits a break
and enter, should be KILLED. Well Conan, you're living in the wrong
country. Go to Texas where you can blow away people for stealing your cows.
>
>>The problem is, people like you read the papers and go, "Oh my God, all
the
>>robbers are killing everyone these days," because they're the only ones
>>reported.
>
>Do you deny burglaries and other violent crimes have increased?
I guess burglaries did increase by 0.8% over a 5 year period. Attempted
break ins increased by 0.1%. Hardly anything to get your panties in a knot
over.
>Get this through your THICK SKULL: when a burglar decides to
>burgle a residence and doesn't care if the owner is home or not....
>THAT is TANTAMOUNT to a HOME INVASION!
Why do you think they *usually* commit a break in at night? Because they do
not want to be seen by neighbours, and they do not want to be seen by the
home owners. The early morning is a time when they think they can get in
and out without being spotted.
A home invasion is aimed at harrassing and harming the occupants. I've said
this like 4 times, which part do you not get?
>
>>>>> Wot they will do,
>>>>>however,
>>>>>is to inflict serious damage on _u_ or yr loved ones in order to
either:
>>>>>[i]facilitate their escape and/or [ii]get the items they came for in
the
>>>>>first place
>>>>>to support their druggo habit!
>>>
>>>>They will more likely attempt to harm you if you are unarmed. If you
>have
>>>a
>>>>gun, or even a bat, they are not likely to continue attacking you.
>>>
>>>As above: when are u gunna wake up to realities?
>
>>What country do you live in? Obviously not Australia.
>
>Clearly u don't! BTW: I don't go by the mainstream
>media....I go by the local newspapers
Local newspapers are the mainstream media. Local newspapers are tabloids.
Tabloids are more prone to fantasy thatn larger papers.
> and the ABS figures.
Well now I know you are simply lying, as above, the ABS shows a very slight
increase in break ins.
>They all show _skyrocketing_ violent crime right here in good
>ol' Oz! What planet are u living on?!
The only think skyrocketing is your imagination. Actually visiting the ABS
website might help, rather than just pretending.
>
>>>(even a gun don't scare 'em these days, because:
>>>[i]it may not be real[guns are getting a bit scarce on the ground!];
>
>>Yeah, I can just see most thieves "testing their luck" as to whether your
>>gun is real or not when it's aimed at them.
>
>Why shouldn't they?...unless itz _obviously_ a real one...like an under
>and over 12G?
I'm not even going to bother answering that, it is the dumbest thing I've
read for quite some time.
>
>>>[ii]it may not be loaded.....as per onerous storage requirements...or
even
>>>have the bolt/breech block inserted and/or
>
>>Again, are they going to test whether or not you're a responsible gun
owner
>>and keep your ammo in another room? Are they going to assume you haven't
>>put the ammo in your gun? I doubt it.
>
>itz a possibility.....especially if the punk thinks he's got into the
>house without being noticed...
I know this must seem like a big action comic to you, but these are real
people who have real fears. They don't just throw their lives away on the
small chance that your gun isn't loaded.
>
>>>[iii]the thug will anticipate that you will not use it[re: legal
>>>ramifications!])
>
>>Again, too much Hollywood... where the bad guy always talks down someone
>>with a gun at them, then disarms them etc etc.
>
>Yeh...but in the US(most states) u can legally BLOW AWAY a BURGLAR.
>Here, u can't! And the THUGS know it!
It's not really most States AFAIK. In most states you have to show that you
tried to evade contact, ie. you can only shoot them when you are cornered
and in fear of your life. In other states you can nail them just for being
there.
>
><snip>
>
>>>most likely home...then that _IS_ a home invasion.
>
>>No, a break and enter is different to a home invasion. One is violent and
>>attempted without stealth, while the other is quiet, and generally
>attempted
>>with the goal of getting in and out without detection.
>
>Nope! A 'burglary' is, by definition, a stealthy entering of premisses
>(when the occupant is most likely not at home) for the purposes of
>stealing goods.
A burglary or break in is a stealthy process, however, it is also committed
when the occupants are asleep (as well as not home).
> A home invasion is one where the Thug[s] couldn't
>give a TOSS if the occupant is home or not.....and, even the commonly
>accepted idea of 'home invasions' is not accurate They don't all involve
>kicking down the front door.....some involve stealthy entry, with the
>thugs being disguised to avoid 'detection' anyway!
But their main purpose is to attack the occupants whilst robbing. They are
also likely to be armed.
>
>>> Common sense(not
>>>early '90s action flicks!) demonstrates that the THUG in question will
>>>most likely be armed to a greater or lesser degree.
>>
>>That sentence doesn't make sense?
>>For a home invader, they would most definitely be armed, most likely one
of
>>them with a gun. A thief may carry a weapon, though it is very unlikely.
>
>A 'weapon' qualifies as: knife, gun, crowbar, baseball bat, sawn-off pool
>cue,
>lump of wood, axe, whatever........a 'thief' may very well be carrying any
>of these
Yes, and? I agree a home invader will have a weapon (probably a gun), while
a thief is unlikely to.
>
>>>>A thief is entirely different, preferring to not make contact with
anyone
>>>at
>>>>all.
>>>
>>>as above.......because of the Gun Grab, burglars are now less concerned
>>>with confronting householders.
>
>>This is bullshit. Gun Grab has done NOTHING against pistols. Do you
think
>>burglars believe that there is no risk now that all of the SA Rifles, pump
>>action and SA shotties, and FA Assault Rifles are gone?
>
>Yep! Precisely! Why? Because legal pistol ownership was _always_
>miniscule.
So bolt action rifles don't hurt crims?
> And involved very onerous storage requirements.
>Crims and thugs, OTOH, have _always_ been able to get
>pistols/revolvers(it is one of their preferred weapons of choice....
>mainly because of the concealability!)
>
>>A pistol will still kill you, in fact, for close quarters combat (apart
>from
>>a submachine gun) a pistol is probably what most gun owners would choose
to
>>confront a thief with in the home.
>
>Yeah? Well, unfortunately for yr little argument, most gun owners didn't
>_own_ pistols/revolvers. They owned long-arms. The greatest % of
>these long-arms are now categorised as 'proscribed'. Sure, some have
>since gone out and purchased alternatives. However, the ludicrous storage
>requirements and bureaucratic bullshit involved easily sets the thug's
>mind at rest regarding confrontations with armed house-holders.
That's because most gun owners do not buy guns for home protection. They're
mostly sportsmen.
>
>>> This agrees with a N° of serious academic
>>>studies done on the subject....by the likes of Lott, Mustard and Kleck.
>>>Thugs are significantly _deterred_ from entering premises when they know
>>>the house-holder:[i]is ARMED(or even likely to be) and [ii]will not
>>>suffer any undue legal sanctions for BLOWING THEM AWAY!
>
>>So then it's not relevant, because a) people are still armed with pistols,
>>bolt action rifles etc.,
>
>Nope! As above, pistols/revolvers are thin on the ground...and always have
>bin in Oz and the storage/bureaucratic requirments mitigates against people
>owning bolt actions(a $400 'safe' required to store a $150 gun...that rules
>out a lot of people to start with!). Furthermore, as stated above and
>elsewhere
>ad nauseum, the PENALTIES for using firearms for self-defence are ONEROUS!
>U will ALMOST CERTAINLY be charged if u discharge a firearm at a burglar
>or thug! IOW: they're useless!
And pre-gun grab, the rules were no less stringent for SA rifles either.
>
>and b) if your life is in danger, you can blow
>>someone away.
>
>Sure u can....but expect to be CHARGED for so doing!
>This ain't Kenneshaw Co. Georgia mate!
No, if your life is in danger, and you've made this obvious to the police,
they will not bother charging you. However, if you are a little
inconsistent or the police deem it necessary to hear from the coroner, than
they will charge you.
>
>>>>>and who refuses requests to await the police is certainly not
interested
>>>>>in yr health and well-being!
>>>
>>>>They're interested in escaping if you have a gun pointed at them!
>>>
>>>see above......'ponting guns' at burglars in Oz is now no longer
>>>a common activity!
>>
>>Oh yeah, right. "Damn, the Government took away my AR-15, whatever will I
>>shoot them with?". No one seriously needed those sought of guns for home
>>protection. The only useful ones were perhaps pump action shotguns
>>(preferably without a stock).
>
>Put away yr straw man! Who said anything about AR-15s, AK-47s, SLRs
>or anything else? We're talking about semi-auto .22s.....a cheap, reliable
>and useful home-defence weapon, and, previously, one of the most popular
>and widely owned semi-auto firearms. Now BANNED!
Buy a .22 pistol. It's much better for home defence. How big is your house
that you need a rifle to aim up a target??
> A semi-auto is quicker
>and easier to operate than a mechanical-action weapon
Gee, thanks for filling me in.
> and is ideal
>for old-age pensioners, invalids or single mums.....the people who
>MOST need them NOW!
A pistol is even more ideal.
>
>>You're deluded!
>
>And yr brain-washed!
By who? You a) watch too many movies, b) read too many tabloids, and c)
never actually look up figures.
Who is trying to brainwash me to make me say that break ins are not commonly
violent?
Who is trying to brainwash me to make me say that you shouldn't shoot an
unarmed, non-advancing perp?
Maybe there's a black helicopter over my house manipulating my mind with
some psi equipment?
>
><snip>
>
>>>>Nope, neither have you (discounting movies).
>>
>>>Sorry...I _HAVE_ Especially around the area where I live.
>>
>>But you don't own a gun. What did you do when the machete was flying at
>>you? Pull out your broadsword and have a sword fight?
>
>I didn't say it happened to ME.
So then, your answer should have been "NO". Instead you said you "HAVE"
experienced violent perps. You basically lied.
> I said it _happens_, around this
>neighbourhood.
Well shit, it happens in the neighbourhood next to mine, that must mean I
have experience as well.
> Yr only alternative these days is to invest in home
>security....dead locks, security grills, alarms, whatever....at
>considerable expense!
Yes, prevention is a much better method.
>
>>>Therez heapz of 'em! You should try it sometimes....it gives a whole
>>>new perspective to the term 'gun control'!
>
>>How did you get the perp out of your house, if they're all such crazy
>>natural born killers?
>
>As above....it hasn't happened to me. But it has happened in
>the neighbourhood and to people I _know_.
So what did they do, shoot them dead?
>I don't have to worry about 'getting them out of the house',
>because they don't get _in_ in the first place...thnx to the
>above-mentioned 'security features'
Which is more sensible than simply readying yourself to mow down
bloodthirsty perps.
>>> Naturally, there are variations on
>>>the theme.....but so wot? The point is, unless u are confident in yr
>>martial
>>>arts abilities...you are in _REAL_ trouble in such an incident!
>
>>No. If you have a gun, you are in control.
>
>Yeahahahhaha....trouble is, hardly anyone's got ONE, nowadays
They never did. Previously, the same gun owners merely had MORE guns per
person. Now they only have their legal ones left over. If you previously
owned a nice semi auto shotgun, and you go give it back under the new laws,
do you think that you would only have owned one shotgun, and do you also
think, that this person would not go out and buy themselves something to
replace it with?
>(except for the THUGS, of course...they can ALWAYS get guns!)
Yes.
>>I know this, but if you're not in real threat, you're not going to open
>fire
>>on their torso.
>
>Itz how 'a real threat' is determined that is the key to it, ain't it?
Yes.
>
>>>if u'v got him cornered in a well-lit room and therez no
>>>distractions....sure!
>>>Unfortunately, these things happen UNEXPECTEDLY,
>
>>Yes, but it is your house. You have knowledge of the house, the perp does
>>not. You get the element of surprise (unlike the movies).
>
>maybe...maybe not! How long does it take a thug to
>'case' the average sized house?
It depends how long he's been there. Even so, you can lay in ambush rather
than "going to check on that noise" and walking into a trap. Preferably
wait by a light switch so that you can stun the perp first and get your gun
on him ASAP.
>
>>> sometimes in
>>>the dark and sometimes in an area where there is plenty of room for
>>>ducking and diving......and where there could easily be unexpected
>>>diversions favouring the THUG
>
>>Yes, sometimes. If they dive in the dark, you'll most likely see them go
>>down, and if not, I don't know how you found them in the first place is it
>>is THAT dark. Once they do that, you would assume that they are readying
a
>>weapon, in which case, you take cover . While this is going on, you can
>>still yell warnings etc. If they only have a knife or something, they're
>>going to try and make a break for it, though if they come at you, open
fire
>>I say.
>
>U should stick with the 'house-holder has a gun' scenario. A _knife_
>ain't gunna deter most psychos these days A chain-saw _might_, but
>who keeps them in the living-room?!
No, no... I said if "they" have a knife, ie. the perp.
>
>>>>2) If you shoot an unarmed perp (who is not moving on you) because you
>>>>"think" he might have a weapon, you should not have a gun licence.
>>>
>>>U don't know what he's doing. The point is: he's _moving_. Maybe
>>>out-the-window. Maybe not. Shooting someone who has sat down,
>>>put their hands on their head/whatever and agreed to await the arrival
>>>of the police is _ILLEGAL_ and _SHOULD BE_
>
>>So we agree.
>
>......on that, of course! But that wasn't the point. The point was:
>[i]thug enters house; [ii]house-holder confronts thug(preferably with
>loaded gun); [iii]thug refuses to comply with house-holder's request to
>'surrender' and await police;
At this point you're at loggerheads. The only thing you can do is watch and
allow the thug to escape, or keep the distance between you and the perp, or
fire at the perp if he advances.
[iv]thug make various indeterminate
>movements....
>maybe escaping, maybe not; [v]householder gives thug final warning;
>[vi]thug is moving to another area of the house....window, door,other side
>of room, whatever.....[vii]householder shoots Thug.
If you can con the jury/police into believing you were in real threat for
your life, you'd probably get away with it. I think trying to follow the
perp would be the best bet.
>
>>> Gun licences don't come
>>>into it! Such an act is a clear-cut case for a charge of murder to be
>>>laid. So...i'm not gunna play yr little politically correct game!
>
>>What has political correctness got to do with anything? Do you understand
>>what PC means, or do you simply use it as an abusive word to anything you
>>don't like?
>
>I'm quite aware of what it is. It could be best described as 'cultural
>marxism'
>It springs directly from a mish-mash of philosophical bullshit called
>'post-modernism' One of its aims is to overturn all the traditional
>concepts of morals, ethics, religion and rights...u know...
Yeh, like cowardly shooting someone in the back, or someone who is unarmed?
Traditional concepts of honour would not allow one to do such a thing, but
you're the one overturning that here. Just so you can be sure.
all those
>sort of rights that spring from the traditional Xian European heritage
>and which are described so well in the 1688 Bill of Rights, US Constitution
>and
>the Magna Carta.
So how do I fall into being PC? I fit in to abiding by the law, and having
some code of honour and responsibility with a firearm.
>
>>This is a game of responsibility.
>
>Sorry: on my own property, _I_ am responsible for what goes on.
>The guvmint stops at MY front gate. End of story.
No, that is how we would like it to be. That is not how it is, and the law
doesn't usually see it that way either.
> Thatz another one
>of those traditional rights that goes WAYyyyyyyy back to Magna Carta
>and beyond....itz called 'controlling Big Guvmint'
So move to Texas.
>
>>>Citizens should:
>>>[i]have free access to most firearms with minimal restrictions;
>
>>They should be subject to past criminal checks and psychological
>evaluation.
>
>'psychological evalution'....how the hell do you define that.
Most high responsibility jobs require one.
>Most 'psychs' need 'evaluation' themselves.
heh yes ;)
>Past criminal checks are pointless anyway. Crims will get
>guns regardless!
It is better they get it off the black market than from a legal store. If
they are licenced, they only worsen the public opinion of gun ownership. If
the gun is from the black market, the sportsmen do not get blamed.
>>It's the fruitcakes who give gun owners a bad name.
>
>Nope...itz the politically correct media mafia that gives gun owners
>a bad name!
No, they swing from side to side. Fruitcakes give the media reason to
attack gun ownership.
>
>
>>>[ii]have clear-cut rights of self-defence and the right
>>>to own firearms for such purposes
>>
>>Yes.
>
>[.......] And such rights currently do not exist
I know.
>
>>>[iii]be able to own firearms to protect them from out-of-control scumbag
>>>guvmints!(or the possibility that a guvmint might go out-of-control....
>>>the price of liberty is eternal vigilance!)
>
>>True, though this scenario is quite silly, as the actual benefits would be
>>outweighed by the losses. Are you American?
>
>Check the facts......every nation that has been inflicted with tryrannical
>bullshit this century and suffered mass murders/genocides(the _real_
>psychos and mass killers are GUVMINTS...._NOT_ the 'lone/psycho
>gunman scenario') has, almost universally, been DIS-ARMED first..
>USSR, China, Nrth Korea, Rwanda, Sudan...take yr pick!
Yes I know, and Governments have killed over 130,000,000 people this century
etc. etc. By the way, China had already been disarmed before the
Communists.
So you think Australia is going to get taken over by a tyrant?
>
><snip>
>
>>>>Not at all. Not in Australia anyway.
>>>
>>>'Fraid it is!
>>
>You write to sound like an American from a southern country town, and your
>>perspective of reality seems more akin to a someone from a stereotypical
>>shit-house ghetto. That's why I ask, because the only crazies that appear
>>in Australia, are the ones in the papers, who are a small percentage of
>what
>>makes up the break and enter type crims.
>
>check the ABS figures.
Errr, I think you should... I've posted them above.
> I call it as I see it.
No, as you wish it appeared.
> U oughta know by now that
>I ain't a friggin Yank! Are you slow or just stoopid?!
Well Australian's do not say guvmint, and they do not say "ain't". You know
what I mean, you use American coloquialisms.
> Do you think i'd
>be wasting all this time and energy ranting and raving about Gun Grabbing
>and sky-rocketing violent crime rates in Oz if i could just go down the
>local
>hardware store and purchase a .45 ACP?!
You can, though not from a hardware store :)
>
>>The majority would prefer to leave the house and rob someone else,
>>than either fight you (as you have a gun), or even have a gun fight with
>you
>>and win, as in the latter, they will become more eagerly pursued by the
>>police than they would if they simply ran away. More effort goes into a
>>homicide investigation that it does a simple break and enter. I've talked
>>with an ex-con who was caught for break and enters and grand theft auto,
>and
>>he said it was common to go into a home unarmed, as the sentence
>skyrocketed
>>if you were court breaking and entering with a weapon, compared to being
>>caught without one.
>
>not in Oz it don't....._u_ must be a Yank!
That would mean you think our violent crime is worse than the US.
>
>>>If they duck down behind the sofa? Is that trying to run?
>>
>>No, that is time to take cover.
>
>....Not if they reappear 2s later wielding a weapon it aint!
Well if you've taken cover, you're ready. What do you think taking cover is
meant to do?
>
>>No, these are simply the ones which make the papers, because they're a
more
>>interesting read.
>
>...and many don't make the papers. So, there's more than you know out
there!
Yes, the non-violent ones do not make the papers. All of the violent ones
receive a mention (in local tabloids), even if only in a briefs section,
because they are newsworthy. No one's going to read about Mr. Jones waking
up to discover he'd been robbed (unless Mr. Jones is famous). They will,
however, read about Mr. Jones being battered and stabbed 42 times during a
home invasion, which makes for a great read.
>>
>>A cop should charge you if you shoot a fleeing perp. A jury will not
>acquit
>>you unless you can give evidence that you used reasonable force. Using
>>deadly force on a perp who is trying to leave the scene is not
"reasonable"
>>by any means.
>
>*I agree: a cop will charge you. At least in Oz. In fact, they'll charge u
>even
>if u shoot an _armed_ perp(even if he's got a gun!)
That is not true. Police do not wish to waste time and resource on a case
they think is believable.
>*I disagree: a jury will _not_ convict you...especially if the thug's
record
>is brought up(which, of course, it usually is). I cite the West Sunshine
>case mentioned above as similar enough to qualify for a jury acquittal
>(of course, that doesn't mean that a jury will _never_ convict you of such
>an offence....you could have the mis-fortune of a bad lawyer,
>concocted forensic evidence, lying witnesses...whatever)
The record has othing to do with it. They simply have to have a case given
to them that makes them believe the occupant used "reasonable force", which
of course varies from case to case.
>
>>>>2) They stay at bay
>>>
>>>cops will charge u regardless....with something, anyway
>>
>>Your problem is that you have a negative view of the Government and law
>>enforcement. The police will not waste time and resources, if they
believe
>>you acted reasonably. If they find inconsistencies, they will charge you.
>
>Nope! Not in Oz! Remember Laurie Morris? That was clear cut!
No, the guy was unarmed! Of course the police have to charge him, as they
cannot establish from the scene, whether or not Morris used reasonable
force.
>All this shit is POLITICAL now-a-days, thatz why.
Yes, I know that, and the police are shafted by politicians.
> Occasionally,
>the Director of Public Prosecutions may over-ride the cops and
>drop the charges(issue a nolle prosequi...a No Bill) Where guns
>are involved, however, that tends not to happen these days!
>Most likely, u'll have to go all the way to trial by jury(ultimately,
>our only guarantee of liberty in this shitpot country now) to
>get justice!
They're the ones that get a lot of press though.
[snip]
What are your laws in your State? In QLD they are particularly vague, ie.
reasonable force varies from case to case.
Chris
jimbo
>
>jimbo wrote in message <38f7...@news.alphalink.com.au>...
>>>
>>>In such cases, the home owner will rarely be called to court (although
>>there
>>>are two instances where this was not so... the police suspected the home
>>>owners did not give proper warning and were not really in danger of their
>>>lives).
>>
>>There u go...itz up to the 'discretion' of the cops.
>That's correct. They are, afterall, trying to enforce the law. The law
>states that you can only use reasonable force.
Perhaps we should substitute the word 'whim' for discretion
>> IOW, itz all relative.
>>U have no guarantee that you will not be charged even if the psycho
>>was waving a chain-saw around!
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>>Since when has 'being young'(as in 18-25) been a caveat on thuggery?
>>
>>>It isn't, but for the most part, these people are not looking to
kill/harm
>>>anyone, and will run if they are spotted.
>>
>>I beg to differ. Not these days.
>So, in your dream world, 80% of break and enters are committed by violent
>people who would rather kill/harm the occupants than escape/make off with
>the loot?
More straw men.....straw man building must be a hobby of yrs?!
If u read wot i said in context, u'll get the gist of it. Itz _more likely_
these days for thugs to harm their victims if they give any trouble.
Let me ask _YOU_ something? What year do you think this is?
1950 or 2000? Have you actually ever bothered to have a look at
the society around you? In case you hadn't noticed, itz CHOCK-A-BLOCK
FULL of serial killers, mass murderers, serial rapists, child molesters,
drug dealers, granny bashers and kid killers. Is this a dream or
is this reality? HELLO! Earth to Chris G....anyone home?
>Your problem is that you are mixing up home invasions (which are all aimed
>at being violent) with break and enters. The latter does not seek a
>confrontation, and will more likely run if spotted than "fight for the
>loot".
Herez how it works...for the Nth time.....[i]burglar(who may well be a
drugged-
out psycho) does burglary not caring whether or not victim is home;
[ii]burglar is confronted by home-owner(who doesn't fancy drugged out
psychos roaming about his abode un-invited!); [iii]burglary becomes
'aggravated burglary' and [iv]now is equal(for all intents and purposes)
to 'home invasion'
got that? Or will I have to repeat it an Nth+1th time?
Hmmm......?!
>>>> The thugs out there these days are mean, vicious and
>>>>homicidal.
>>>LOL! I hope you never own a gun. You're not fit for the responsibility.
>>
>>Are u? Wotz it got to do with anything though? Those are
>>_the facts_
>That you've made up.
Check that other thread I mentioned...therez a discussion on
increased violent crimes there.
>> Violent crime has sky-rocketed(especially post Gun Grab);
>
>Show me your statistics. The ABS reports:
>
>Break Ins 1993: 4.4%, 1998: 5.0%.
>Attempted Break Ins 1993: 3.1%, 1998: 3.2%
>
>These are the crimes we are talking about. Why are you talking about
>violent crimes? Oh that's right, you think all break and enters are
>violent. Even if they were violent, can you show me where they have
>"skyrocketed"?
>(http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/c311215.NSF/6718888106e6a09bca2567d0001af
2
>de/8ab53dc7c24e6971ca2567220072e98d)
Yeah....of course, we don't have the 1999 figures yet. When they appear,
no doubt u'll be changing yr shit-eating tune......!
U'v also got the wrong link.........u should have gone here:
http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/c311215.NSF/Australia+Now+-+A+Statistical+P
rofile/2C2A842ACC44F31DCA2567220072E990.
ซคปฅซคปงซคปฅซคปงซคปฅซคปงซคปฅซคปงซคปฅซคปงซคปฅซคป
ฏฏฏฏฏฏฏฏฏฏฏฏฏฏฏฏฏฏฏฏฏฏฏฏฏฏฏฏฏฏฏฏฏฏฏฏฏฏฏฏฏฏฏฏฏ
The upward trend in property crime presently occurring in NSW appears to
be part of an Australia-wide trend, according to figures released today
by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS).
The ABS figures show trends in crime recorded by police in every
Australian State and Territory over the period 1996-1997.
Police in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and
Western Australia all recorded an increase in the rate of armed robbery.
**The largest increase (+ 63%) occurred in New South Wales. However the
increases in some other States were also quite substantial. **
Victoria recorded an increase in the rate of armed robbery of 38%,
Queensland recorded an increase of 34%, South Australia recorded an
increase of 10% and Western Australia recorded an increase of 7%.
New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia also recorded increases
in unarmed robbery (+29%, +19% and +40%, respectively).
Other States have also experienced the increase in break and enter and
vehicle theft announced earlier this year in New South Wales.
Recorded rates of break and enter rose by 8% in NSW and 4% in Victoria.
Recorded rates of motor vehicle theft rose by 11% in NSW, 6% in Western
Australia and 5% in Victoria.
**Commenting on these figures, the Director of the NSW Bureau of Crime
Statistics and Research, Dr Don Weatherburn, said that they suggested
that the underlying causes of the upward trend in property crime in New
South Wales were probably national rather than State-based. **
"They also highlight the need for a nationally coordinated approach to
the development of strategies for reducing the level of property crime."
Media Release: Australian Bureau of Statistics - Recorded Crime in
Australia 1997
Release Date: July 15th, 1998
_______________________________________________
ซคปฅซคปงซคปฅซคปงซคปฅซคปงซคปฅซคปงซคปฅซคปงซคปฅซคป
>>longer gaol terms are being handed out; crimes of violence are becoming
>>more frequent and vicious.
>Crimes of violence have no bearing on break and enters, unless it is one of
>the few that turn violent, so your point is not valid.
Ever heard of AGGRAVATED BURGLARY? Unfortunately, we don't
have a finely-tuned statistical break-down of how many of these
burglaries involved some kind of violence. Or, how the ABS defines
'a burglary'. And whether or not there is any cross-over between
'assaults' and violence. Until, we do, YOU haven't got a point........so
don't go
'round saying MY point is invalid!
>> Hence, the perpertrators are meaner,
>Not for simple break and enters. Violent crime covers a lot of different
>crimes, and break and enters are seldom violent.
Here we go again....we just don't know.....however, we DO know
that most of these burglaries are committed by DRUGGOs, who
are not renowned for mental stability. Sorry: I don't regard some
thug floating around my living-room un-invited at 3a.m as a candidate
for the Noble Peace Prize!
>>more vicious and more homicidal than they used to be.
>>Want to dispute any of that?
>I just did.
The hell you did......!
>> Or perhaps you'd care to
>>live in a slightly-more down-market area and get some
>>'on the job' experience yrself? Hmmm.......?
>
>So you're a ghetto person, eh? Here's a hint: move. If your life is in
>SUCH danger, move.
U live where yr forced to live by economic circumstances.
Do you think I live in the sort of neighbourhood I do by _CHOICE, u
effin' WANKER?!
>>When you _have_: come back and say who should own
>>guns and who shouldn't!
>>>> Blame it on society, political correctness, progressive
>>>>edumacation,
>>>>violent vids, drugz, whatever.......the fact is: thatz the WAY it IS!
>>>You know what gets into the papers? Burglaries that go wrong, and
>>>burglaries that are carried out by the few psychos wired on drugs. You
>>know
>>>what does not make it into the papers? All of the burglaries that do not
>>>end up violent. Do you know how many of these there are? In my area,
25%
>>>of homes get robbed within a 3 year period. There are more non-violent
>>>burglaries than there are violent ones, probably 100-fold more.
>>
>>Thatz right.....and u can blame it on the Gun Grab.
>Err, this was 1992-1995. Here's a fact that may astound you: crime
existed
>before they took away assault rifles. Another fact: you do not need a
semi
>auto rifle to kill someone.
Here's a fact that may astound YOU: crime has _risen_ (I'd say
substantially)
since they TOOK AWAY ASSAULT RIFLES(there you go with yr straw men
again....a .22 semi-auto isn't an ASSAULT RIFLE you FUCKWIT!)
No: u _don't_ need an ASSAULT rifle to kill someone. A .22 semi-auto will
do just as well....or a semi-auto shtgn.....or even a pump-action
shotgun....or
even a centrefire/civilian semi-auto...ALL NOW PROSCRIBED by the
Gun Grabbers!
>> How many of
>>those burglaries involved confrontations where the house-holder is
>>at home? Hmmm....maybe they were just damned lucky!
>>BTW: you are saying WHAT, exactly? We should just allow
>>anyone who feels like it to waltz in and waltz out of our
>>residences at will and take whatever they like...just so long
>>as they make a clean getaway?
>If I am saying that, then you must be saying that anyone who commits a
break
>and enter, should be KILLED. Well Conan, you're living in the wrong
>country. Go to Texas where you can blow away people for stealing your
cows.
U dunno wot the HELL yr saying and haven't since u decided to BUTT IN
to this post! Next time a drugged-out psycho turns up in yr bed-room at
3a.m, I'll read with interest how y'all sat down and had a nice cup of tea
and a place of iced vo-vos. U INSUFFERABLE FUCKWIT U!
>>>The problem is, people like you read the papers and go, "Oh my God, all
>the
>>>robbers are killing everyone these days," because they're the only ones
>>>reported.
>>
>>Do you deny burglaries and other violent crimes have increased?
>I guess burglaries did increase by 0.8% over a 5 year period. Attempted
>break ins increased by 0.1%. Hardly anything to get your panties in a knot
>over.
1996 1997 1998
Unlawful entry with intent
Involving the taking of property
313,902 332,525 343,256
Other
88,177 89,044 92,414
Total
402,079 421,569 435,670
....sorry, thatz an 8.4% increase, from 1996, according to my
clcltr. This agrees more or less with an article in the 'Bulletin'
mgzn last year citing an increase between 9-11% in burglaries.
>>Get this through your THICK SKULL: when a burglar decides to
>>burgle a residence and doesn't care if the owner is home or not....
>>THAT is TANTAMOUNT to a HOME INVASION!
>Why do you think they *usually* commit a break in at night? Because they
do
>not want to be seen by neighbours, and they do not want to be seen by the
>home owners. The early morning is a time when they think they can get in
>and out without being spotted.
Where are the home owners at night? Aren't they at home?
If they didn't want to confront the owners, the ideal time would be
_during the day_. Ok: they might be seen(but not if they're careful)
'Neighbourhood Watch' ain't worth a crock!
>A home invasion is aimed at harrassing and harming the occupants. I've
said
>this like 4 times, which part do you not get?
No....itz the part YOU don't get.....and I'v said it THREE TIMES now....
burglar confronts home-owner==aggravated burglary ~home invasion!
Same bloke, differrent haircut!
<snip>
>>Clearly u don't! BTW: I don't go by the mainstream
>>media....I go by the local newspapers
>Local newspapers are the mainstream media. Local newspapers are tabloids.
>Tabloids are more prone to fantasy thatn larger papers.
Local newspapers are _NOT_ the mainstream media. For a start,
it is much easier to get a 'Letter to the Editor' pblshd....so their facts,
if incorrect, can be easily challenged(unlike Murdoch's comix and
the Spencer Street Soviet)
They are also not tabloids; at least no more than the metropolitan
newspapers masquerading as 'serious opinion' and 'considered analysis',
but which is just thinly disguised politically correct claptrap!
>> and the ABS figures.
>Well now I know you are simply lying, as above, the ABS shows a very slight
>increase in break ins.
Well now, I know you simply don't know what the hell yr talking about,
because the ABS figures show almost a 8ฝ% increase in break-ins.
That ain't _slight_. 0.8 is slight....BUT NOT 8+%
>>They all show _skyrocketing_ violent crime right here in good
>>ol' Oz! What planet are u living on?!
>The only think skyrocketing is your imagination. Actually visiting the ABS
>website might help, rather than just pretending.
Take yr own advice And do some serious reading on constructing arguments
and backing them up while yr at it!
>>>>(even a gun don't scare 'em these days, because:
>>>>[i]it may not be real[guns are getting a bit scarce on the ground!];
>>
>>>Yeah, I can just see most thieves "testing their luck" as to whether your
>>>gun is real or not when it's aimed at them.
>>
>>Why shouldn't they?...unless itz _obviously_ a real one...like an under
>>and over 12G?
>I'm not even going to bother answering that, it is the dumbest thing I've
>read for quite some time.
.......no dumber than the rubbish u'v been posting up!
>>>>[ii]it may not be loaded.....as per onerous storage requirements...or
>even
>>>>have the bolt/breech block inserted and/or
>>
>>>Again, are they going to test whether or not you're a responsible gun
>owner
>>>and keep your ammo in another room? Are they going to assume you haven't
>>>put the ammo in your gun? I doubt it.
>>
>>itz a possibility.....especially if the punk thinks he's got into the
>>house without being noticed...
>
>I know this must seem like a big action comic to you, but these are real
>people who have real fears. They don't just throw their lives away on the
>small chance that your gun isn't loaded.
Ho hum! They're scumbags....end of story. They enter at their own
risk, AFAIMC!
>>>>[iii]the thug will anticipate that you will not use it[re: legal
>>>>ramifications!])
>>
>>>Again, too much Hollywood... where the bad guy always talks down someone
>>>with a gun at them, then disarms them etc etc.
>>
>>Yeh...but in the US(most states) u can legally BLOW AWAY a BURGLAR.
>>Here, u can't! And the THUGS know it!
>
>It's not really most States AFAIK. In most states you have to show that
you
>tried to evade contact, ie. you can only shoot them when you are cornered
>and in fear of your life. In other states you can nail them just for being
>there.
Nearly all southern/mid-western and northern states(Wyoming, Montana, Idaho
&c)
make it legal to shoot burglars These are also the states that have enacted
CC laws and where crime has _plummeted_ accordingly.....in most of the
Eastern and
Western seaboard states(New York, California, Washington, Oregon) it is
not legal to do so, but these are not in the majority!
>><snip>
>>>>most likely home...then that _IS_ a home invasion.
>>>No, a break and enter is different to a home invasion. One is violent
and
>>>attempted without stealth, while the other is quiet, and generally
>>attempted
>>>with the goal of getting in and out without detection.
>>
>>Nope! A 'burglary' is, by definition, a stealthy entering of premisses
>>(when the occupant is most likely not at home) for the purposes of
>>stealing goods.
>A burglary or break in is a stealthy process, however, it is also committed
>when the occupants are asleep (as well as not home).
...and with the attendant risk of alerting the owners(which the thugs
no longer give a toss about, of course!)
>> A home invasion is one where the Thug[s] couldn't
>>give a TOSS if the occupant is home or not.....and, even the commonly
>>accepted idea of 'home invasions' is not accurate They don't all involve
>>kicking down the front door.....some involve stealthy entry, with the
>>thugs being disguised to avoid 'detection' anyway!
>But their main purpose is to attack the occupants whilst robbing. They are
>also likely to be armed.
Their main purpose is to get what they came for. It is, in effect, an
'armed robbery' in the home. As with 'armed robberies', if the
victims start getting stroppy, the violence is escalated accordingly!
>Yes, and? I agree a home invader will have a weapon (probably a gun),
while
>a thief is unlikely to.
why not? A home invader will almost certainly have a weapon.
A 'burglar' may _well_ have one also...maybe less likely than
the armed bandit but certainly a definite possibility...._too_
definite to pussy-foot around with the friggin' jerk!
<snip>
>>>This is bullshit. Gun Grab has done NOTHING against pistols. Do you
>think
>>>burglars believe that there is no risk now that all of the SA Rifles,
pump
>>>action and SA shotties, and FA Assault Rifles are gone?
>>Yep! Precisely! Why? Because legal pistol ownership was _always_
>>miniscule.
>So bolt action rifles don't hurt crims?
U still don't get it do you? The storage requirements(and the legal
penalties attached for use) make the bolt action rifles permitted under
the Gun Grab Laws little better than USELESS.
We also have the fact that pensioners, invalids and even some
women find them more difficult to operate than semi-autos(which require
a minimum of strength, dexterity and ability.....u just 'cock' it
and[assuming
the safety is 'off'] pull da trigga........result: dead THUG!)
>> And involved very onerous storage requirements.
>>Crims and thugs, OTOH, have _always_ been able to get
>>pistols/revolvers(it is one of their preferred weapons of choice....
>>mainly because of the concealability!)
>>
>>>A pistol will still kill you, in fact, for close quarters combat (apart
>>from
>>>a submachine gun) a pistol is probably what most gun owners would choose
>to
>>>confront a thief with in the home.
>>
>>Yeah? Well, unfortunately for yr little argument, most gun owners didn't
>>_own_ pistols/revolvers. They owned long-arms. The greatest % of
>>these long-arms are now categorised as 'proscribed'. Sure, some have
>>since gone out and purchased alternatives. However, the ludicrous storage
>>requirements and bureaucratic bullshit involved easily sets the thug's
>>mind at rest regarding confrontations with armed house-holders.
>That's because most gun owners do not buy guns for home protection.
They're
>mostly sportsmen.
Hahahha...yeah! _NOW_ they don't...the Gun Grabbers have well and truly
seen to that. The last thing these marxist maggots want is people defending
themselves in their own homes. Pre-Gun Grab, all sorts of people were buying
guns...not just sportsmen!(who won't have them for much longer anyway...the
Gun Grabbers'll just make the rules and regulations for the particular sport
more
onerous, complicated and expensive....just like they're trying to do with
duck shooting!)
>>>> This agrees with a Nฐ of serious academic
>>>>studies done on the subject....by the likes of Lott, Mustard and Kleck.
>>>>Thugs are significantly _deterred_ from entering premises when they know
>>>>the house-holder:[i]is ARMED(or even likely to be) and [ii]will not
>>>>suffer any undue legal sanctions for BLOWING THEM AWAY!
>>
>>>So then it's not relevant, because a) people are still armed with
pistols,
>>>bolt action rifles etc.,
>>
>>Nope! As above, pistols/revolvers are thin on the ground...and always have
>>bin in Oz and the storage/bureaucratic requirments mitigates against
people
>>owning bolt actions(a $400 'safe' required to store a $150 gun...that
rules
>>out a lot of people to start with!). Furthermore, as stated above and
>>elsewhere
>>ad nauseum, the PENALTIES for using firearms for self-defence are ONEROUS!
>>U will ALMOST CERTAINLY be charged if u discharge a firearm at a burglar
>>or thug! IOW: they're useless!
>And pre-gun grab, the rules were no less stringent for SA rifles either.
Nope! The penalties for possessing (unlicensed) SAs were eff' all! They've
been increased significantly! They are now proscribed weapons!
All penalties associated with firearms have now been increased.
We may also mention the fact that even the cops are _different_
today...there are many more 19-yr old politically correct punks and
20-yr old femi-Nazis then there previously were! Most, if not all,
of the old style cops(who exercised a certain amount of give-and-take)
are gone, replaced by these FREAKS!
>>and b) if your life is in danger, you can blow
>>>someone away.
>>
>>Sure u can....but expect to be CHARGED for so doing!
>>This ain't Kenneshaw Co. Georgia mate!
>
>No, if your life is in danger, and you've made this obvious to the police,
>they will not bother charging you. However, if you are a little
>inconsistent or the police deem it necessary to hear from the coroner, than
>they will charge you.
blah blah blah......as soon as u open yr mouth, yr GONE! Thatz the
rule of thumb! Wake up to yr-self!
<snip>
>>Put away yr straw man! Who said anything about AR-15s, AK-47s, SLRs
>>or anything else? We're talking about semi-auto .22s.....a cheap, reliable
>>and useful home-defence weapon, and, previously, one of the most popular
>>and widely owned semi-auto firearms. Now BANNED!
>Buy a .22 pistol. It's much better for home defence. How big is your
house
>that you need a rifle to aim up a target??
I'm not a pistol fan, nor have i ever been. Besides, there is even more
bureaucratic bullshit involved than buying a bolt-action. No thnx!
I'll just wait for another election or two until these politcal maggots
feel the back-lash of dis-enfranchised shooters and are FORCED to
change the Gun Grab Laws. Its already happening!
>> A semi-auto is quicker
>>and easier to operate than a mechanical-action weapon
>Gee, thanks for filling me in.
pity i can't fill yr head with brains as well......
>> and is ideal
>>for old-age pensioners, invalids or single mums.....the people who
>>MOST need them NOW!
>A pistol is even more ideal.
and much harder to get a licence for......and much harder to
meet the storage requirements.....and much easier to lose
for some slight violation of the many restrictions......&c!
>>>You're deluded!
>>And yr brain-washed!
>By who? You a) watch too many movies, b) read too many tabloids, and c)
>never actually look up figures.
By the media. You:(a)believe too much bullshit from the eedjit box and the
tabloids;
(b)don't check yr facts and (c)don't know how to analyse facts when they're
presented to you
>Who is trying to brainwash me to make me say that break ins are not
commonly
>violent?
>Who is trying to brainwash me to make me say that you shouldn't shoot an
>unarmed, non-advancing perp?
The politically correct media thugs who reckon that a man doesn't have
a right to defend himself and his family in his own home. Seems to me
u'v fallen for it hook, line and sinker!
>Maybe there's a black helicopter over my house manipulating my mind with
>some psi equipment?
No....but there's sure as hell a black eedjit box sitting in the corner of
yr
lounge-room and filling yr head with anti-gun loon BULLSHIT!
Spend more time on the 'Net perusing SSAA sites and the appropriate
links.
>><snip>
>>>>>Nope, neither have you (discounting movies).
>>>
>>>>Sorry...I _HAVE_ Especially around the area where I live.
>>>
>>>But you don't own a gun. What did you do when the machete was flying at
>>>you? Pull out your broadsword and have a sword fight?
>>
>>I didn't say it happened to ME.
>So then, your answer should have been "NO". Instead you said you "HAVE"
>experienced violent perps. You basically lied.
And yr basically full of shit! I'v _seen_ it happening at close range.....
good enough for you? Doesn't have to happen to YOU personally....
itz almost as scary!
>> I said it _happens_, around this
>>neighbourhood.
>
>Well shit, it happens in the neighbourhood next to mine, that must mean I
>have experience as well.
Pity you haven't experienced it FIRST HAND.....we might not get so
much pro-thug politically correct Bullshit out of u then!
>> Yr only alternative these days is to invest in home
>>security....dead locks, security grills, alarms, whatever....at
>>considerable expense!
>
>Yes, prevention is a much better method.
.....and a much more costly one. I'll take a .22 semi-auto any day thnx!
>>>>Therez heapz of 'em! You should try it sometimes....it gives a whole
>>>>new perspective to the term 'gun control'!
>>
>>>How did you get the perp out of your house, if they're all such crazy
>>>natural born killers?
>>
>>As above....it hasn't happened to me. But it has happened in
>>the neighbourhood and to people I _know_.
>
>So what did they do, shoot them dead?
What with? Non-existent semi-auto .22s?
>>I don't have to worry about 'getting them out of the house',
>>because they don't get _in_ in the first place...thnx to the
>>above-mentioned 'security features'
>Which is more sensible than simply readying yourself to mow down
>bloodthirsty perps.
I see. What are we supposed to do with them? Discuss the weather?
>>>> Naturally, there are variations on
>>>>the theme.....but so wot? The point is, unless u are confident in yr
>>>martial
>>>>arts abilities...you are in _REAL_ trouble in such an incident!
>>
>>>No. If you have a gun, you are in control.
>>
>>Yeahahahhaha....trouble is, hardly anyone's got ONE, nowadays
>
>They never did. Previously, the same gun owners merely had MORE guns per
>person. Now they only have their legal ones left over. If you previously
>owned a nice semi auto shotgun, and you go give it back under the new laws,
>do you think that you would only have owned one shotgun, and do you also
>think, that this person would not go out and buy themselves something to
>replace it with?
Bullshit! The gun ownership rate had been estimated as high as 1-in-4
households
in Oz. Furthermore, the 640,000 handed in was apparently only a _small_
fraction of the total....many more are still out there..._buried_ probably!
Geezzz! People just trust their guvmints don't they?!
>>(except for the THUGS, of course...they can ALWAYS get guns!)
>Yes.
Of course
>>>I know this, but if you're not in real threat, you're not going to open
>>fire
>>>on their torso.
>>
>>Itz how 'a real threat' is determined that is the key to it, ain't it?
>Yes.
Of course
>>>>if u'v got him cornered in a well-lit room and therez no
>>>>distractions....sure!
>>>>Unfortunately, these things happen UNEXPECTEDLY,
>>
>>>Yes, but it is your house. You have knowledge of the house, the perp
does
>>>not. You get the element of surprise (unlike the movies).
>>
>>maybe...maybe not! How long does it take a thug to
>>'case' the average sized house?
>
>It depends how long he's been there. Even so, you can lay in ambush rather
>than "going to check on that noise" and walking into a trap. Preferably
>wait by a light switch so that you can stun the perp first and get your gun
>on him ASAP.
well,now, we would be doing just that wouldn't we? If we
didn't live in a shit-eating country run by faggots, femi-nazis and
UN-appointed commisars?
<snip>
>>U should stick with the 'house-holder has a gun' scenario. A _knife_
>>ain't gunna deter most psychos these days A chain-saw _might_, but
>>who keeps them in the living-room?!
>No, no... I said if "they" have a knife, ie. the perp.
...and thatz about all yr gunna have too. Thnx to the Gun Grabbers!
>>>>>2) If you shoot an unarmed perp (who is not moving on you) because you
>>>>>"think" he might have a weapon, you should not have a gun licence.
>>>>
>>>>U don't know what he's doing. The point is: he's _moving_. Maybe
>>>>out-the-window. Maybe not. Shooting someone who has sat down,
>>>>put their hands on their head/whatever and agreed to await the arrival
>>>>of the police is _ILLEGAL_ and _SHOULD BE_
>>
>>>So we agree.
>>
>>......on that, of course! But that wasn't the point. The point was:
>>[i]thug enters house; [ii]house-holder confronts thug(preferably with
>>loaded gun); [iii]thug refuses to comply with house-holder's request to
>>'surrender' and await police;
>At this point you're at loggerheads. The only thing you can do is watch
and
>allow the thug to escape, or keep the distance between you and the perp, or
>fire at the perp if he advances.
just fire at the prick...irrespective of wot he does.......he's already
lost his chance of surrendering peacefully....so.......!
>[iv]thug make various indeterminate
>>movements....
>>maybe escaping, maybe not; [v]householder gives thug final warning;
>>[vi]thug is moving to another area of the house....window, door,other side
>>of room, whatever.....[vii]householder shoots Thug.
>If you can con the jury/police into believing you were in real threat for
>your life, you'd probably get away with it. I think trying to follow the
>perp would be the best bet.
Of course, you could always try punching his lights out....that would
save lots of fuss and bother wouldn't it? Trouble is, if yr a woman,
and invalid, an old age pensioner or just not feeling too crash hot
that particular day, the option's not open to you, is it?!
>>>> Gun licences don't come
>>>>into it! Such an act is a clear-cut case for a charge of murder to be
>>>>laid. So...i'm not gunna play yr little politically correct game!
>>
>>>What has political correctness got to do with anything? Do you
understand
>>>what PC means, or do you simply use it as an abusive word to anything you
>>>don't like?
>>
>>I'm quite aware of what it is. It could be best described as 'cultural
>>marxism'
>>It springs directly from a mish-mash of philosophical bullshit called
>>'post-modernism' One of its aims is to overturn all the traditional
>>concepts of morals, ethics, religion and rights...u know...
>Yeh, like cowardly shooting someone in the back, or someone who is unarmed?
>Traditional concepts of honour would not allow one to do such a thing, but
>you're the one overturning that here. Just so you can be sure.
...and traditional concepts of morality would not allow a thug
to enter someone's house un-invited to steal/terrorise as he saw fit,
nor would it cast opprobium on someone for stopping the thug dead in
his tracks. I can even quote the Bible verse on that:
"If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall
no blood be shed for him" [Exodus 22:2]
>all those
>>sort of rights that spring from the traditional Xian European heritage
>>and which are described so well in the 1688 Bill of Rights, US
Constitution
>>and
>>the Magna Carta.
>So how do I fall into being PC? I fit in to abiding by the law, and having
>some code of honour and responsibility with a firearm.
'Abiding by the law' means nothing if the law isn't worth
abiding by. Gun Grab Laws are a case in point.
*=======================================*
"There`s no way to rule innocent men. The only
power any government has is the power to crack
down on criminals. Well, when they're aren't
enough criminals, one makes them. One declares
so many things to be a crime, that it becomes
impossible to live without breaking laws."
[Ayn Rand: 'Atlas Shrugged`]
*======================================*
>>>This is a game of responsibility.
>>
>>Sorry: on my own property, _I_ am responsible for what goes on.
>>The guvmint stops at MY front gate. End of story.
>No, that is how we would like it to be. That is not how it is, and the law
>doesn't usually see it that way either.
The 'law' that has been written by a bunch of politically correct arseholes
with no more moral authority than the common house-brick.
>> Thatz another one
>>of those traditional rights that goes WAYyyyyyyy back to Magna Carta
>>and beyond....itz called 'controlling Big Guvmint'
>So move to Texas.
I'v got a better idea....put all the politically correct thugs on a
slow boat to China! Why should i leave my own country?
>>>>Citizens should:
>>>>[i]have free access to most firearms with minimal restrictions;
>>
>>>They should be subject to past criminal checks and psychological
>>evaluation.
>>
>>'psychological evalution'....how the hell do you define that.
>Most high responsibility jobs require one.
and itz mainly waffle...
>>Most 'psychs' need 'evaluation' themselves.
>
>heh yes ;)
>>Past criminal checks are pointless anyway. Crims will get
>>guns regardless!
>
>It is better they get it off the black market than from a legal store. If
>they are licenced, they only worsen the public opinion of gun ownership.
If
>the gun is from the black market, the sportsmen do not get blamed.
The 'public opinion'[translation: media perception] of gun ownership
is rock-bottom anyway....wotz the difference?
>>>It's the fruitcakes who give gun owners a bad name.
>>
>>Nope...itz the politically correct media mafia that gives gun owners
>>a bad name!
>No, they swing from side to side. Fruitcakes give the media reason to
>attack gun ownership.
The media's full of politically correct fruitcakes and has been for the last
20 yrs or so....ever since it started filling up with '60s radicals and
dead-beatz! As such, one of their raison d'etres is attacking gun
owners.....
it doesn't sit well with their marxist mumbo-jumbo that private citizens
should
own/possess arms!
<snip>
>>Check the facts......every nation that has been inflicted with tryrannical
>>bullshit this century and suffered mass murders/genocides(the _real_
>>psychos and mass killers are GUVMINTS...._NOT_ the 'lone/psycho
>>gunman scenario') has, almost universally, been DIS-ARMED first..
>>USSR, China, Nrth Korea, Rwanda, Sudan...take yr pick!
>
>Yes I know, and Governments have killed over 130,000,000 people this
century
>etc. etc. By the way, China had already been disarmed before the
>Communists.
....making it that much easier for them...just like 'gun registration' does
for the prospective tyrant!
>So you think Australia is going to get taken over by a tyrant?
...maybe an Indonesian one!
>>>>>Not at all. Not in Australia anyway.
>>>>
>>>>'Fraid it is!
>>>
>>You write to sound like an American from a southern country town, and your
>>>perspective of reality seems more akin to a someone from a stereotypical
>>>shit-house ghetto. That's why I ask, because the only crazies that
appear
>>>in Australia, are the ones in the papers, who are a small percentage of
>>what
>>>makes up the break and enter type crims.
>>
>>check the ABS figures.
>
>Errr, I think you should... I've posted them above.
so have i
>> I call it as I see it.
>No, as you wish it appeared.
as it is, and as my understanding of it is!
>> U oughta know by now that
>>I ain't a friggin Yank! Are you slow or just stoopid?!
>
>Well Australian's do not say guvmint, and they do not say "ain't". You
know
>what I mean, you use American coloquialisms.
so wot? at least i don't go 'round wearing back-to-front baseball caps!
>> Do you think i'd
>>be wasting all this time and energy ranting and raving about Gun Grabbing
>>and sky-rocketing violent crime rates in Oz if i could just go down the
>>local
>>hardware store and purchase a .45 ACP?!
>You can, though not from a hardware store :)
....not without a great deal of difficulty and bureaucratic crap!
>>>The majority would prefer to leave the house and rob someone else,
>>>than either fight you (as you have a gun), or even have a gun fight with
>>you
>>>and win, as in the latter, they will become more eagerly pursued by the
>>>police than they would if they simply ran away. More effort goes into a
>>>homicide investigation that it does a simple break and enter. I've
talked
>>>with an ex-con who was caught for break and enters and grand theft auto,
>>and
>>>he said it was common to go into a home unarmed, as the sentence
>>skyrocketed
>>>if you were court breaking and entering with a weapon, compared to being
>>>caught without one.
>>
>>not in Oz it don't....._u_ must be a Yank!
>That would mean you think our violent crime is worse than the US.
Itz rapidly getting that way. The stats from US areas with CC laws show
that, in some cases, their crime rates are better than ours. Also, most of
the US crime is caused/associated with multi-culturalism rather than
gun ownership.......the more guns==more crime scenario is just another
media myth without any serious academic research to back it up!
>>>>If they duck down behind the sofa? Is that trying to run?
>>>
>>>No, that is time to take cover.
>>
>>....Not if they reappear 2s later wielding a weapon it aint!
>Well if you've taken cover, you're ready. What do you think taking cover
is
>meant to do?
give u time to cock and lock?
>>>No, these are simply the ones which make the papers, because they're a
>more
>>>interesting read.
>>
>>...and many don't make the papers. So, there's more than you know out
>there!
>
>Yes, the non-violent ones do not make the papers. All of the violent ones
>receive a mention (in local tabloids), even if only in a briefs section,
>because they are newsworthy. No one's going to read about Mr. Jones waking
>up to discover he'd been robbed (unless Mr. Jones is famous). They will,
>however, read about Mr. Jones being battered and stabbed 42 times during a
>home invasion, which makes for a great read.
They may not read about Mr Jones being stabbed 4 times though....or even
hit over the head a couple of times with a blunt object! Not all the violent
ones
receive a mention...only the _sensationally_ violent ones!
>>>A cop should charge you if you shoot a fleeing perp. A jury will not
>>acquit
>>>you unless you can give evidence that you used reasonable force. Using
>>>deadly force on a perp who is trying to leave the scene is not
>"reasonable"
>>>by any means.
>>
>>*I agree: a cop will charge you. At least in Oz. In fact, they'll charge u
>>even
>>if u shoot an _armed_ perp(even if he's got a gun!)
>That is not true. Police do not wish to waste time and resource on a case
>they think is believable.
THey can be _made_ to waste time by their superiors....also, cops
ain't wot they used to be 15-20yrs ago!
>>*I disagree: a jury will _not_ convict you...especially if the thug's
>record
>>is brought up(which, of course, it usually is). I cite the West Sunshine
>>case mentioned above as similar enough to qualify for a jury acquittal
>>(of course, that doesn't mean that a jury will _never_ convict you of such
>>an offence....you could have the mis-fortune of a bad lawyer,
>>concocted forensic evidence, lying witnesses...whatever)
>The record has othing to do with it. They simply have to have a case given
>to them that makes them believe the occupant used "reasonable force", which
>of course varies from case to case.
The test is usually: would a reasonable person, put in the same situation,
act in the same way. Since most jurors are either home-owners or
home-renters,
they can easily envisage themselves in such a situation and predict how they
would
react. Thatz why the politically correct mafia don't like the jury system!
>>>>>2) They stay at bay
>>>>
>>>>cops will charge u regardless....with something, anyway
>>>
>>>Your problem is that you have a negative view of the Government and law
>>>enforcement. The police will not waste time and resources, if they
>believe
>>>you acted reasonably. If they find inconsistencies, they will charge
you.
>>
>>Nope! Not in Oz! Remember Laurie Morris? That was clear cut!
>No, the guy was unarmed! Of course the police have to charge him, as they
>cannot establish from the scene, whether or not Morris used reasonable
>force.
I think he was armed with something....can't remember what.
>>All this shit is POLITICAL now-a-days, thatz why.
>Yes, I know that, and the police are shafted by politicians.
And some of them are appointed by politicians.
>> Occasionally,
>>the Director of Public Prosecutions may over-ride the cops and
>>drop the charges(issue a nolle prosequi...a No Bill) Where guns
>>are involved, however, that tends not to happen these days!
>>Most likely, u'll have to go all the way to trial by jury(ultimately,
>>our only guarantee of liberty in this shitpot country now) to
>>get justice!
>They're the ones that get a lot of press though.
we all know that....
>[snip]
>What are your laws in your State? In QLD they are particularly vague, ie.
>reasonable force varies from case to case.
There are precedents on self-defence established by case law.
There is also such a thing as 'excessive self-defence'
Basically, it is up to the jury.
Chris G
>
>>So, in your dream world, 80% of break and enters are committed by violent
>>people who would rather kill/harm the occupants than escape/make off with
>>the loot?
>
>More straw men.....straw man building must be a hobby of yrs?!
>If u read wot i said in context, u'll get the gist of it. Itz _more likely_
>these days for thugs to harm their victims if they give any trouble.
>Let me ask _YOU_ something? What year do you think this is?
>1950 or 2000? Have you actually ever bothered to have a look at
>the society around you? In case you hadn't noticed, itz CHOCK-A-BLOCK
>FULL of serial killers, mass murderers, serial rapists, child molesters,
>drug dealers, granny bashers and kid killers.
HAHAHAHAHA
Oh yeh, I encounter one of these EVERDAY of the week. These people are out
there, but look at what you're saying. There's no "chock-a-block" anything.
> Is this a dream or
>is this reality? HELLO! Earth to Chris G....anyone home?
It's as real as your "skyrocketing" ABS figures which, funnily enough, the
ABS don't agree with.
>
>>Your problem is that you are mixing up home invasions (which are all aimed
>>at being violent) with break and enters. The latter does not seek a
>>confrontation, and will more likely run if spotted than "fight for the
>>loot".
>
>Herez how it works...for the Nth time.....[i]burglar(who may well be a
>drugged-
>out psycho) does burglary not caring whether or not victim is home;
If they did not care, they would not bother using stealth, which is fairly
uncommon.
>[ii]burglar is confronted by home-owner(who doesn't fancy drugged out
>psychos roaming about his abode un-invited!); [iii]burglary becomes
>'aggravated burglary' and [iv]now is equal(for all intents and purposes)
>to 'home invasion'
>got that? Or will I have to repeat it an Nth+1th time?
>Hmmm......?!
What am I not making clear? Someone breaking in for theft will use stealth,
and they will AVOID confrontation. ie. You make a noise, they take what
they have and get the hell out.
>
>>That you've made up.
>
>Check that other thread I mentioned...therez a discussion on
>increased violent crimes there.
>
>>> Violent crime has sky-rocketed(especially post Gun Grab);
>>
>>Show me your statistics. The ABS reports:
>>
>>Break Ins 1993: 4.4%, 1998: 5.0%.
>>Attempted Break Ins 1993: 3.1%, 1998: 3.2%
>>
>>These are the crimes we are talking about. Why are you talking about
>>violent crimes? Oh that's right, you think all break and enters are
>>violent. Even if they were violent, can you show me where they have
>>"skyrocketed"?
>
>>(http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/c311215.NSF/6718888106e6a09bca2567d0001a
f
>2
>>de/8ab53dc7c24e6971ca2567220072e98d)
>
>Yeah....of course, we don't have the 1999 figures yet.
So what? The gun laws did not change in 1999 did they. Your figures below
are for 1998 as well.
> When they appear,
>no doubt u'll be changing yr shit-eating tune......!
Oh I'm sure, Jimbo. I'm sure they'll "skyrocket".
>U'v also got the wrong link.........u should have gone here:
>http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/c311215.NSF/Australia+Now+-+A+Statistical+
P
>rofile/2C2A842ACC44F31DCA2567220072E990.
The above link works for me. What's wrong, you don't like the figures I
posted above? It means that breakins occur to only 5% of households, up
from 4.4% in 1993. Hardly skyrocketing.
[snip]
>_______________________________________________
>«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»
>
That article dealt with armed robbery, which includes the holding up of
banks, shops, service stations etc. The important figures are the property
ones, "...offences against property (unlawful entry with intent, motor
vehicle theft and other theft)". It does not tell you which of these are
done by an armed person, however, it does list a % of how many people are
there to rob, compared to those who wish to harm the occupants or property
itself.
The total number of unlawful entries increased by 7.8% between 1996 and
1998. Not much of a skyrocket.
In 1998, of all unlawful entries, 79% were carried out with the intent to
steal property. The remaining 21% were carried out with the intent to harm
the occupants or property.
So that means, to our argument, Jimbo, that 79% of the time, the thief is
there to steal. The other 21% are the ones intent on smashing either you or
your property.
>>>longer gaol terms are being handed out; crimes of violence are becoming
>>>more frequent and vicious.
>
>>Crimes of violence have no bearing on break and enters, unless it is one
of
>>the few that turn violent, so your point is not valid.
>
>Ever heard of AGGRAVATED BURGLARY? Unfortunately, we don't
>have a finely-tuned statistical break-down of how many of these
>burglaries involved some kind of violence.
True, but we could, for your arguments sake, say that ALL of the 21%
committed assault, though this is unlikely, considering the 21% figure takes
into account not only assaulters, but property vandals as well.
> Or, how the ABS defines
>'a burglary'.
Yeh, it makes the distinction at the top...
"Nationally, offences against property (unlawful entry with intent, motor
vehicle theft and other theft)" - PROPERTY
"This age group had the highest victimisation rates for manslaughter, sexual
assault, kidnapping/abduction, armed robbery and unarmed robbery" - PERSONAL
> And whether or not there is any cross-over between
>'assaults' and violence. Until, we do, YOU haven't got a point........so
>don't go
>'round saying MY point is invalid!
The only think that skyrocketed was armed robbery, which is not committed
against the householder according to these figures. If it did, then the
armed and unarmed robbery figures would be WAY in excess of the total number
of unlawful entries.
So basically, your point is not relevant (unless you want to talk about
defending your business or personal self in the street and not your home).
>
>>> Hence, the perpertrators are meaner,
>
>>Not for simple break and enters. Violent crime covers a lot of different
>>crimes, and break and enters are seldom violent.
>
>Here we go again....we just don't know.....however, we DO know
>that most of these burglaries are committed by DRUGGOs, who
>are not renowned for mental stability. Sorry: I don't regard some
>thug floating around my living-room un-invited at 3a.m as a candidate
>for the Noble Peace Prize!
I regard him as some punk on drugs who wants to flog all my nice gear to buy
more drugs.
>
>>>more vicious and more homicidal than they used to be.
>>>Want to dispute any of that?
>
>>I just did.
>
>The hell you did......!
Read above :)
>
>>> Or perhaps you'd care to
>>>live in a slightly-more down-market area and get some
>>>'on the job' experience yrself? Hmmm.......?
>>
>>So you're a ghetto person, eh? Here's a hint: move. If your life is in
>>SUCH danger, move.
>
>U live where yr forced to live by economic circumstances.
>Do you think I live in the sort of neighbourhood I do by _CHOICE, u
>effin' WANKER?!
Bullshit, if you really feared for your life you'd move to another cheap
area that lacked the violence your area does. I just moved from a dodgey
neighbourhood. The Feds had the place under surveillance for weeks because
of an organised drug job going on through one of the tenants. Not to
mention all the domestics and evictions the police had to stop around for.
Solution? Move to another cheap neighbourhood. You'll find there are some
shit ones, and some relatively good ones.
>
>>Err, this was 1992-1995. Here's a fact that may astound you: crime
>existed
>>before they took away assault rifles. Another fact: you do not need a
>semi
>>auto rifle to kill someone.
>
>Here's a fact that may astound YOU: crime has _risen_ (I'd say
>substantially)
Armed robbery. Don't you think that contradicts the gun grab? More robbers
are arming themselves, but less of the population have guns. Hmmmmmm.
>since they TOOK AWAY ASSAULT RIFLES(there you go with yr straw men
>again....a .22 semi-auto isn't an ASSAULT RIFLE you FUCKWIT!)
You specified .22 afterwards you bloody idiot.
>No: u _don't_ need an ASSAULT rifle to kill someone. A .22 semi-auto will
>do just as well....or a semi-auto shtgn.....or even a pump-action
>shotgun....or
>even a centrefire/civilian semi-auto...ALL NOW PROSCRIBED by the
>Gun Grabbers!
You don't understand do you? If you cared so much about your need to kill
perps to save your life, you'd buy a bloody pistol. But this doesn't seem
to make any difference to you does it? So I have to assume you're ranting
on about the other guns just because they're no longer available, not
because you're really interested in effectively wiping out thieves.
>
>>> How many of
>>>those burglaries involved confrontations where the house-holder is
>>>at home? Hmmm....maybe they were just damned lucky!
>>>BTW: you are saying WHAT, exactly? We should just allow
>>>anyone who feels like it to waltz in and waltz out of our
>>>residences at will and take whatever they like...just so long
>>>as they make a clean getaway?
>
>>If I am saying that, then you must be saying that anyone who commits a
>break
>>and enter, should be KILLED. Well Conan, you're living in the wrong
>>country. Go to Texas where you can blow away people for stealing your
>cows.
>
>U dunno wot the HELL yr saying and haven't since u decided to BUTT IN
>to this post! Next time a drugged-out psycho turns up in yr bed-room at
>3a.m, I'll read with interest how y'all sat down and had a nice cup of tea
>and a place of iced vo-vos. U INSUFFERABLE FUCKWIT U!
Oh, now you've gone off the deep end, haven't you? I said I'd shoot down
any real threat to my livelihood. You WANT to kill anything that moves that
shouldn't be on your property, "just incase".
>
>>>>The problem is, people like you read the papers and go, "Oh my God, all
>>the
>>>>robbers are killing everyone these days," because they're the only ones
>>>>reported.
>>>
>>>Do you deny burglaries and other violent crimes have increased?
>
>>I guess burglaries did increase by 0.8% over a 5 year period. Attempted
>>break ins increased by 0.1%. Hardly anything to get your panties in a
knot
>>over.
>1996 1997 1998
>Unlawful entry with intent
> Involving the taking of property
>313,902 332,525 343,256
> Other
>88,177 89,044 92,414
> Total
>402,079 421,569 435,670
>
>....sorry, thatz an 8.4% increase, from 1996, according to my
>clcltr. This agrees more or less with an article in the 'Bulletin'
>mgzn last year citing an increase between 9-11% in burglaries.
Err, my figures are "of the total number of households". ie. of all
households, 5% were burgled this year. In 1993 this was 4.4%.
Your figures are "of the crimes committed." Thus the different %. And is
8.4% a massive increase? Is it a skyrocket?
>
>
>>>Get this through your THICK SKULL: when a burglar decides to
>>>burgle a residence and doesn't care if the owner is home or not....
>>>THAT is TANTAMOUNT to a HOME INVASION!
>
>>Why do you think they *usually* commit a break in at night? Because they
>do
>>not want to be seen by neighbours, and they do not want to be seen by the
>>home owners. The early morning is a time when they think they can get in
>>and out without being spotted.
>
>Where are the home owners at night? Aren't they at home?
Asleep, Einstein.
>If they didn't want to confront the owners, the ideal time would be
>_during the day_. Ok: they might be seen(but not if they're careful)
>'Neighbourhood Watch' ain't worth a crock!
The risk of being seen and having their vehicle seen in the day time is too
high, compared to risking waking up the owners at night.
>>A home invasion is aimed at harrassing and harming the occupants. I've
>said
>>this like 4 times, which part do you not get?
>
>No....itz the part YOU don't get.....and I'v said it THREE TIMES now....
>burglar confronts home-owner==aggravated burglary ~home invasion!
>Same bloke, differrent haircut!
Alright, well you call it whatever you want if it makes you happy, I'm going
by the police defintion (or what they report it as to the papers in press
releases).
>
><snip>
>
>>>Clearly u don't! BTW: I don't go by the mainstream
>>>media....I go by the local newspapers
>
>>Local newspapers are the mainstream media. Local newspapers are tabloids.
>>Tabloids are more prone to fantasy thatn larger papers.
>
>Local newspapers are _NOT_ the mainstream media. For a start,
>it is much easier to get a 'Letter to the Editor' pblshd....so their facts,
>if incorrect, can be easily challenged(unlike Murdoch's comix and
>the Spencer Street Soviet)
>They are also not tabloids; at least no more than the metropolitan
>newspapers masquerading as 'serious opinion' and 'considered analysis',
>but which is just thinly disguised politically correct claptrap!
That's a really interesting opinion. I studied Journalism, and
unfortunately for you, all local, metropolitan, regional and national papers
are considered mainstream UNLESS they specify a certain bias, or write to a
niche readership. Local papers are also considered (by Journalists anyway)
to be tabloids.
Maybe you should go to your paper and tell them they're not mainstream
though, that would add some humour to their morning.
>
>>> and the ABS figures.
>
>>Well now I know you are simply lying, as above, the ABS shows a very
slight
>>increase in break ins.
>
>Well now, I know you simply don't know what the hell yr talking about,
>because the ABS figures show almost a 8½% increase in break-ins.
>That ain't _slight_. 0.8 is slight....BUT NOT 8+%
Sorry, you're right... I am wrong, 4.4 to 5% = 0.6% increase... sorry about
that.
>
>>>They all show _skyrocketing_ violent crime right here in good
>>>ol' Oz! What planet are u living on?!
>
>>The only think skyrocketing is your imagination. Actually visiting the
ABS
>>website might help, rather than just pretending.
>
>Take yr own advice And do some serious reading on constructing arguments
>and backing them up while yr at it!
But I did, or are you going to tell me my figures aren't actually on the ABS
website?
>>>
>>>Why shouldn't they?...unless itz _obviously_ a real one...like an under
>>>and over 12G?
>
>>I'm not even going to bother answering that, it is the dumbest thing I've
>>read for quite some time.
>
>.......no dumber than the rubbish u'v been posting up!
No it is seriously dumb to assume that the average robber is going to chance
his life on your gun not being loaded. That's even too dumb for a B-grade
action flick.
>>>
>>>itz a possibility.....especially if the punk thinks he's got into the
>>>house without being noticed...
>>
>>I know this must seem like a big action comic to you, but these are real
>>people who have real fears. They don't just throw their lives away on the
>>small chance that your gun isn't loaded.
>
>Ho hum! They're scumbags....end of story. They enter at their own
>risk, AFAIMC!
Which doesn't make the any less real as people. If it were you, robbing
someone, would you throw yourself at a gun and hope the thing wasn't loaded?
Drop the argument, it only makes sense if the thief is fucked on drugs,
which most wouldn't be until they got home (and sold your shit).
>>
>>It's not really most States AFAIK. In most states you have to show that
>you
>>tried to evade contact, ie. you can only shoot them when you are cornered
>>and in fear of your life. In other states you can nail them just for
being
>>there.
>
>Nearly all southern/mid-western and northern states(Wyoming, Montana, Idaho
>&c)
>make it legal to shoot burglars These are also the states that have enacted
>CC laws and where crime has _plummeted_ accordingly.....in most of the
>Eastern and
>Western seaboard states(New York, California, Washington, Oregon) it is
>not legal to do so, but these are not in the majority!
While there's some good points attributed to gun ownership, there are also
some bad ones, ie. like the type of people that are allowed to own one, and
the lack of knowledge these morons have of owning, maintaining, and securing
a firearm. Those dicks are also the reason for those terrible accidents,
and they end up giving the responsible gun owners a bad name.
>
>>A burglary or break in is a stealthy process, however, it is also
committed
>>when the occupants are asleep (as well as not home).
>
>...and with the attendant risk of alerting the owners(which the thugs
>no longer give a toss about, of course!)
Maybe not, but AGAIN:
a) why escalate your crime from a break and enter to an assault or murder?
b) why risk your livelihood when you can run off and try robbing another
house in another neighbourhood?
>
>>> A home invasion is one where the Thug[s] couldn't
>>>give a TOSS if the occupant is home or not.....and, even the commonly
>>>accepted idea of 'home invasions' is not accurate They don't all involve
>>>kicking down the front door.....some involve stealthy entry, with the
>>>thugs being disguised to avoid 'detection' anyway!
>
>>But their main purpose is to attack the occupants whilst robbing. They
are
>>also likely to be armed.
>
>Their main purpose is to get what they came for. It is, in effect, an
>'armed robbery' in the home. As with 'armed robberies', if the
>victims start getting stroppy, the violence is escalated accordingly!
Yes but it usually happens to people who have safes etc. or somethingn
valuable that the robbers need the home owner to be present, to attain.
>
>>Yes, and? I agree a home invader will have a weapon (probably a gun),
>while
>>a thief is unlikely to.
>
>why not? A home invader will almost certainly have a weapon.
Yes, otherwise they're not really home invading (or doing a good job of it).
>A 'burglar' may _well_ have one also...maybe less likely than
>the armed bandit but certainly a definite possibility...._too_
>definite to pussy-foot around with the friggin' jerk!
Who's pussy footing?
><snip>
>
>>>>This is bullshit. Gun Grab has done NOTHING against pistols. Do you
>>think
>>>>burglars believe that there is no risk now that all of the SA Rifles,
>pump
>>>>action and SA shotties, and FA Assault Rifles are gone?
>>>Yep! Precisely! Why? Because legal pistol ownership was _always_
>>>miniscule.
>
>
>>So bolt action rifles don't hurt crims?
>
>U still don't get it do you? The storage requirements(and the legal
>penalties attached for use) make the bolt action rifles permitted under
>the Gun Grab Laws little better than USELESS.
Funny, the case I cited before (with gun owner shooting kid who breaks
through glass door) was committed in a low light setting with a high powered
bolt action rifle.
>We also have the fact that pensioners, invalids and even some
>women find them more difficult to operate than semi-autos(which require
>a minimum of strength, dexterity and ability.....u just 'cock' it
>and[assuming
>the safety is 'off'] pull da trigga........result: dead THUG!)
All of these people are better off with a pistol, aren't they?! The pistol
is SA, but also much lighter.
>>>
>>>Yeah? Well, unfortunately for yr little argument, most gun owners didn't
>>>_own_ pistols/revolvers. They owned long-arms. The greatest % of
>>>these long-arms are now categorised as 'proscribed'. Sure, some have
>>>since gone out and purchased alternatives. However, the ludicrous storage
>>>requirements and bureaucratic bullshit involved easily sets the thug's
>>>mind at rest regarding confrontations with armed house-holders.
>
>>That's because most gun owners do not buy guns for home protection.
>They're
>>mostly sportsmen.
>
>Hahahha...yeah! _NOW_ they don't...the Gun Grabbers have well and truly
>seen to that. The last thing these marxist maggots want is people defending
>themselves in their own homes.
HAHA You're a militia wannabee aren't ya! "Marxist maggots." Please!
Why keep pistols legal (or any guns for that matter)?
>>And pre-gun grab, the rules were no less stringent for SA rifles either.
>
>Nope! The penalties for possessing (unlicensed) SAs were eff' all! They've
>been increased significantly! They are now proscribed weapons!
No... for storage.
>All penalties associated with firearms have now been increased.
>We may also mention the fact that even the cops are _different_
>today...there are many more 19-yr old politically correct punks and
>20-yr old femi-Nazis then there previously were! Most, if not all,
>of the old style cops(who exercised a certain amount of give-and-take)
>are gone, replaced by these FREAKS!
The average *entry level* age of a police officer is 27 in QLD. Remember
the old style cops are the ones in charge still, as the new cops are still
filling in the lower ranks. Not that you'd care, as they're simply the
executive arm of the "marxist maggots" anyway. Guess what profession I'm
going into after working overseas? ;)
>
>>>and b) if your life is in danger, you can blow
>>>>someone away.
>>>
>>>Sure u can....but expect to be CHARGED for so doing!
>>>This ain't Kenneshaw Co. Georgia mate!
>>
>>No, if your life is in danger, and you've made this obvious to the police,
>>they will not bother charging you. However, if you are a little
>>inconsistent or the police deem it necessary to hear from the coroner,
than
>>they will charge you.
>
>blah blah blah......as soon as u open yr mouth, yr GONE! Thatz the
>rule of thumb! Wake up to yr-self!
Good response. Thoroughly convincing.
>
><snip>
>
>>>Put away yr straw man! Who said anything about AR-15s, AK-47s, SLRs
>>>or anything else? We're talking about semi-auto .22s.....a cheap,
reliable
>>>and useful home-defence weapon, and, previously, one of the most popular
>>>and widely owned semi-auto firearms. Now BANNED!
>
>>Buy a .22 pistol. It's much better for home defence. How big is your
>house
>>that you need a rifle to aim up a target??
>
>I'm not a pistol fan, nor have i ever been.
Then you musn't be to keen on saving your skin. I mean, if you want to
shoot someone in your home, a pistol is a good way to do so. Seeing the
bolt action rifle is awkward for such a situation, why not buy a pistol? Or
are you just whinging for no reason, and not really interested on getting a
gun for home protection?
> Besides, there is even more
>bureaucratic bullshit involved than buying a bolt-action. No thnx!
Again, safety doesn't seem to be THAT big a deal to you if you can't wait
through it.
>I'll just wait for another election or two until these politcal maggots
>feel the back-lash of dis-enfranchised shooters and are FORCED to
>change the Gun Grab Laws. Its already happening!
Yeah, that massive gun owner population will just hammer the Government. We
have virtually no voice, and whenever we do get a voice, they give us a
redneck spokesperson who all the latte drinkers think are "bad type right
wingers". So we're fucked.
>
>>> and is ideal
>>>for old-age pensioners, invalids or single mums.....the people who
>>>MOST need them NOW!
>
>>A pistol is even more ideal.
>
>and much harder to get a licence for......
Have you tried?
>and much harder to
>meet the storage requirements.....
They're sensible requirements if you have kids around the home.
>and much easier to lose
>for some slight violation of the many restrictions......&c!
And how would one be caught for one of those?
>
>>>>You're deluded!
>>>And yr brain-washed!
>
>>By who? You a) watch too many movies, b) read too many tabloids, and c)
>>never actually look up figures.
>
>By the media. You:(a)believe too much bullshit from the eedjit box and the
>tabloids;
Oh, so you're using my comebacks on me? But that doesn't work jimbo,
because you're the only one citing sensationalist dribble, "every robbers a
drug fucked psycho, itching to bleed you dry" etc etc.
>(b)don't check yr facts and (c)don't know how to analyse facts when they're
>presented to you
LOL! I guess you say that to all the people you're arguing with... it
sounds good, but it just isn't true.
>
>>Who is trying to brainwash me to make me say that break ins are not
>commonly
>>violent?
>>Who is trying to brainwash me to make me say that you shouldn't shoot an
>>unarmed, non-advancing perp?
>
>The politically correct media thugs who reckon that a man doesn't have
>a right to defend himself and his family in his own home. Seems to me
>u'v fallen for it hook, line and sinker!
Why am I buying a Glock 22 then, you moron?
>
>>Maybe there's a black helicopter over my house manipulating my mind with
>>some psi equipment?
>
>No....but there's sure as hell a black eedjit box sitting in the corner of
>yr
>lounge-room and filling yr head with anti-gun loon BULLSHIT!
>Spend more time on the 'Net perusing SSAA sites and the appropriate
>links.
Anti-gun eh? hahahaha You don't even own a gun, or seem to be getting one.
You just seem to have nothing better to do that make yourself look like a
twat with little southern drawl accents, anti-government lunacies, and
anti-responsibility statements.
>
>>><snip>
>>>>>>Nope, neither have you (discounting movies).
>>>>
>>>>>Sorry...I _HAVE_ Especially around the area where I live.
>>>>
>>>>But you don't own a gun. What did you do when the machete was flying at
>>>>you? Pull out your broadsword and have a sword fight?
>>>
>>>I didn't say it happened to ME.
>
>>So then, your answer should have been "NO". Instead you said you "HAVE"
>>experienced violent perps. You basically lied.
>
>And yr basically full of shit! I'v _seen_ it happening at close range.....
>good enough for you? Doesn't have to happen to YOU personally....
>itz almost as scary!
Ooooooooooooh, this gets better every time... so first "YOU HAVE
experience," then we find out it's NOT first hand experience (you know
someone it happened to), and then you try and say, "IT'S AS GOOD AS first
hand experience".
Now what's close range? A block, two, three? Or are you going to say you
were in the same house, watching from the sidelines?
>
>>> I said it _happens_, around this
>>>neighbourhood.
>>
>>Well shit, it happens in the neighbourhood next to mine, that must mean I
>>have experience as well.
>
>Pity you haven't experienced it FIRST HAND.....we might not get so
>much pro-thug politically correct Bullshit out of u then!
Neither have you!
>
>>> Yr only alternative these days is to invest in home
>>>security....dead locks, security grills, alarms, whatever....at
>>>considerable expense!
>>
>>Yes, prevention is a much better method.
>
>.....and a much more costly one. I'll take a .22 semi-auto any day thnx!
You didn't take any gun at all! If you need a semi-auto rifle to defend
yourself, and no other gun will do, there's something very wrong with you.
In other words, you're full of shit.
>
>>>>>Therez heapz of 'em! You should try it sometimes....it gives a whole
>>>>>new perspective to the term 'gun control'!
>>>
>>>>How did you get the perp out of your house, if they're all such crazy
>>>>natural born killers?
>>>
>>>As above....it hasn't happened to me. But it has happened in
>>>the neighbourhood and to people I _know_.
>>
>>So what did they do, shoot them dead?
>
>What with? Non-existent semi-auto .22s?
What species of cockhead are you?
What did the people -you know- do about the thugs? Or does everyone you
know in your neighbourhood only defend themselves with a .22 semiauto rifle?
>
>>>I don't have to worry about 'getting them out of the house',
>>>because they don't get _in_ in the first place...thnx to the
>>>above-mentioned 'security features'
>
>>Which is more sensible than simply readying yourself to mow down
>>bloodthirsty perps.
>
>I see. What are we supposed to do with them? Discuss the weather?
Err no, keep them out?
I don't know, YOU tell me. You're the one who installed security screens.
>
>>>>> Naturally, there are variations on
>>>>>the theme.....but so wot? The point is, unless u are confident in yr
>>>>martial
>>>>>arts abilities...you are in _REAL_ trouble in such an incident!
>>>
>>>>No. If you have a gun, you are in control.
>>>
>>>Yeahahahhaha....trouble is, hardly anyone's got ONE, nowadays
>>
>>They never did. Previously, the same gun owners merely had MORE guns per
>>person. Now they only have their legal ones left over. If you previously
>>owned a nice semi auto shotgun, and you go give it back under the new
laws,
>>do you think that you would only have owned one shotgun, and do you also
>>think, that this person would not go out and buy themselves something to
>>replace it with?
>
>Bullshit! The gun ownership rate had been estimated as high as 1-in-4
>households
>in Oz.
What??????? I don't know one person who owns a gun, and I know more than 4
people. That's pretty fucken unlikely.
> Furthermore, the 640,000 handed in was apparently only a _small_
>fraction of the total....many more are still out there..._buried_ probably!
>Geezzz! People just trust their guvmints don't they?!
Yes, I heard they estimated only 1/3 of the guns were handed in. What I was
saying was, most gunowners like to keep a few guns.
>>It depends how long he's been there. Even so, you can lay in ambush
rather
>>than "going to check on that noise" and walking into a trap. Preferably
>>wait by a light switch so that you can stun the perp first and get your
gun
>>on him ASAP.
>
>well,now, we would be doing just that wouldn't we? If we
>didn't live in a shit-eating country run by faggots, femi-nazis and
>UN-appointed commisars?
Seek help.
Also, they didn't legislate against me owning a handgun or waiting by the
light, so what are you talking about?
>
><snip>
>
>>>U should stick with the 'house-holder has a gun' scenario. A _knife_
>>>ain't gunna deter most psychos these days A chain-saw _might_, but
>>>who keeps them in the living-room?!
>
>>No, no... I said if "they" have a knife, ie. the perp.
>
>...and thatz about all yr gunna have too. Thnx to the Gun Grabbers!
No, I'll have a gun.
>
>>At this point you're at loggerheads. The only thing you can do is watch
>and
>>allow the thug to escape, or keep the distance between you and the perp,
or
>>fire at the perp if he advances.
>
>just fire at the prick...irrespective of wot he does.......he's already
>lost his chance of surrendering peacefully....so.......!
Only if he advances does he give up that chance. The other two options do
not require firing your weapon.
>
>>[iv]thug make various indeterminate
>>>movements....
>>>maybe escaping, maybe not; [v]householder gives thug final warning;
>>>[vi]thug is moving to another area of the house....window, door,other
side
>>>of room, whatever.....[vii]householder shoots Thug.
>
>
>>If you can con the jury/police into believing you were in real threat for
>>your life, you'd probably get away with it. I think trying to follow the
>>perp would be the best bet.
>
>Of course, you could always try punching his lights out....that would
>save lots of fuss and bother wouldn't it? Trouble is, if yr a woman,
>and invalid, an old age pensioner or just not feeling too crash hot
>that particular day, the option's not open to you, is it?!
Why would you be punching anyone of you have a gun aimed at them?
>>Yeh, like cowardly shooting someone in the back, or someone who is
unarmed?
>>Traditional concepts of honour would not allow one to do such a thing, but
>>you're the one overturning that here. Just so you can be sure.
>
>...and traditional concepts of morality would not allow a thug
>to enter someone's house un-invited to steal/terrorise as he saw fit,
>nor would it cast opprobium on someone for stopping the thug dead in
>his tracks.
Sure, if you're being attacked. But you want to shoot them regardless.
It's both cowardly and immature (I used to think the same as a teenager).
> I can even quote the Bible verse on that:
>"If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall
>no blood be shed for him" [Exodus 22:2]
There's a great place to quote from; one of the biggest pieces of fiction
messed up with ancient laws (2000+ years) from the middle east!
>
>>all those
>>>sort of rights that spring from the traditional Xian European heritage
>>>and which are described so well in the 1688 Bill of Rights, US
>Constitution
>>>and
>>>the Magna Carta.
>
>
>>So how do I fall into being PC? I fit in to abiding by the law, and
having
>>some code of honour and responsibility with a firearm.
>
>'Abiding by the law' means nothing if the law isn't worth
>abiding by. Gun Grab Laws are a case in point.
Well that makes you a criminal, doesn't it? Personally I think you should
be convicted if you are merely seeking revenge on a burglar for simply break
and entering your property, and thereby opening fire on them when they are
not a threat to you.
As you know, I think the perp should be shot if he tries to enact violence
upon you.
>*=======================================*
>"There`s no way to rule innocent men. The only
>power any government has is the power to crack
>down on criminals. Well, when they're aren't
>enough criminals, one makes them. One declares
>so many things to be a crime, that it becomes
>impossible to live without breaking laws."
>[Ayn Rand: 'Atlas Shrugged`]
>*======================================*
I didn't think you liked educated people?
>>>>This is a game of responsibility.
>>>
>>>Sorry: on my own property, _I_ am responsible for what goes on.
>>>The guvmint stops at MY front gate. End of story.
>
>>No, that is how we would like it to be. That is not how it is, and the
law
>>doesn't usually see it that way either.
>
>The 'law' that has been written by a bunch of politically correct arseholes
>with no more moral authority than the common house-brick.
If the law allowed it, would you simply shoot at anyone illegally
tresspassing on your property without warning, or without seeing if they
will surrender or be allowed to flee?
I would like the option (for removing the fear of legal rammifications), but
I would definitely not just shoot at people because I was allowed to.
>
>>> Thatz another one
>>>of those traditional rights that goes WAYyyyyyyy back to Magna Carta
>>>and beyond....itz called 'controlling Big Guvmint'
>
>>So move to Texas.
>
>I'v got a better idea....put all the politically correct thugs on a
>slow boat to China! Why should i leave my own country?
America's liberties are abused by their screwed up society. On the one
hand, guns do not kill people. On the other hand, ANYONE can get a gun, so
you have plenty of halfwits running around with guns. I do not want a
similar scenario here, but then they have restricted us too far in
Australia.
>>>Past criminal checks are pointless anyway. Crims will get
>>>guns regardless!
>>
>>It is better they get it off the black market than from a legal store. If
>>they are licenced, they only worsen the public opinion of gun ownership.
>If
>>the gun is from the black market, the sportsmen do not get blamed.
>
>The 'public opinion'[translation: media perception] of gun ownership
>is rock-bottom anyway....wotz the difference?
*sigh*
>>
>>Yes I know, and Governments have killed over 130,000,000 people this
>century
>>etc. etc. By the way, China had already been disarmed before the
>>Communists.
>
>....making it that much easier for them...just like 'gun registration' does
>for the prospective tyrant!
Well no, the peasants were given arms when they joined the nationalist or
communist armies.
>
>>So you think Australia is going to get taken over by a tyrant?
>
>...maybe an Indonesian one!
Not any time soon, but yes, I guess renegade civilians who are armed could
have a go at some hassle work, though our environment is poor for guerilla
warfare.
>>
>>Well Australian's do not say guvmint, and they do not say "ain't". You
>know
>>what I mean, you use American coloquialisms.
>
>so wot? at least i don't go 'round wearing back-to-front baseball caps!
What's the difference, you are enfatuated with an American way of
life/stereotype, just as stupid homies are.
>
>>> Do you think i'd
>>>be wasting all this time and energy ranting and raving about Gun Grabbing
>>>and sky-rocketing violent crime rates in Oz if i could just go down the
>>>local
>>>hardware store and purchase a .45 ACP?!
>
>>You can, though not from a hardware store :)
>
>....not without a great deal of difficulty and bureaucratic crap!
It's not THAT hard. And it should be hard anyway. Do you think they should
just give the things out like candy?
>
>>Well if you've taken cover, you're ready. What do you think taking cover
>is
>>meant to do?
>
>give u time to cock and lock?
Right. You present a big hassle to the perp then, who will most likely try
and exit.
>>Yes, the non-violent ones do not make the papers. All of the violent ones
>>receive a mention (in local tabloids), even if only in a briefs section,
>>because they are newsworthy. No one's going to read about Mr. Jones
waking
>>up to discover he'd been robbed (unless Mr. Jones is famous). They will,
>>however, read about Mr. Jones being battered and stabbed 42 times during a
>>home invasion, which makes for a great read.
>
>They may not read about Mr Jones being stabbed 4 times though....or even
>hit over the head a couple of times with a blunt object! Not all the
violent
>ones
>receive a mention...only the _sensationally_ violent ones!
Not around here. I guess in a major city paper you could lose the smaller
stories... but then you see my point. Onloy the really violent ones make
the papers, then you have a twisted view of what's really happening.
>
>>That is not true. Police do not wish to waste time and resource on a case
>>they think is believable.
>
>THey can be _made_ to waste time by their superiors....also, cops
>ain't wot they used to be 15-20yrs ago!
What, corrupt? ;)
>>The record has othing to do with it. They simply have to have a case
given
>>to them that makes them believe the occupant used "reasonable force",
which
>>of course varies from case to case.
>
>The test is usually: would a reasonable person, put in the same situation,
>act in the same way. Since most jurors are either home-owners or
>home-renters,
>they can easily envisage themselves in such a situation and predict how
they
>would
>react. Thatz why the politically correct mafia don't like the jury system!
The same people defend our courts though.
>
>>No, the guy was unarmed! Of course the police have to charge him, as they
>>cannot establish from the scene, whether or not Morris used reasonable
>>force.
>
>I think he was armed with something....can't remember what.
A bottle?
>
>>>All this shit is POLITICAL now-a-days, thatz why.
>
>>Yes, I know that, and the police are shafted by politicians.
>
>
>And some of them are appointed by politicians.
Yes, the top ones.
Chris
G
Hunter <hun...@vianet.net.au> wrote in message
<Snipped blah, blah>
> But I also don't think that anyone that takes Vialls seriously is
> living in the real world either.
So exactly what is wrong with Vialls stuff concerning port Arthur?
Name specifics or get out of the argument noise-boy.
Vialls arguments are based on empirical studies. What is YOUR idea of what
happened at PA based on? The voices you hear in your head if you don't wear
your tin-foil hat?
Loon.
G.
jimbo
>>>I beg to differ. Not these days.
>>So, in your dream world, 80% of break and enters are committed by violent
>>people who would rather kill/harm the occupants than escape/make off with
>>the loot?
>More straw men.....straw man building must be a hobby of yrs?!
>If u read wot i said in context, u'll get the gist of it. Itz _more likely_
>these days for thugs to harm their victims if they give any trouble.
>Let me ask _YOU_ something? What year do you think this is?
>1950 or 2000? Have you actually ever bothered to have a look at
>the society around you? In case you hadn't noticed, itz CHOCK-A-BLOCK
>FULL of serial killers, mass murderers, serial rapists, child molesters,
>drug dealers, granny bashers and kid killers.
]HAHAHAHAHA
]Oh yeh, I encounter one of these EVERDAY of the week. These people are out
]there, but look at what you're saying. There's no "chock-a-block"
anything.
'I'v never witnessed a car accident. Therefore they don't happen'
Thatz the level of your logic. Are we going to get into a comparison
of imprisonment rates over the last 50 years? Hmmm.....?
Perhaps you'd care to tell me whenabouts in 1950(or prior) you had
incidents like the: Anita Cobby killing, Ivan Milat killings,
Hoddle Street massacre, 'Mr Stinky' murders, old age pensioners
being regularly terrorised by psychotic thugs and others too numerous to
mention?!
Perhaps we should examine what was taught in schools 50yrs ago as compared
to the
type of trash taught today? Perhaps we should compare church attendances?
Whatever the reason.....do you now deny that the society of 2000A.D is
an equally safe place to the society of 1950!
[Please DO! I will take great pleasure in exposing you as even more of a
schmuck than you have already demonstrated yourself to be!]
> Is this a dream or
>is this reality? HELLO! Earth to Chris G....anyone home?
]It's as real as your "skyrocketing" ABS figures which, funnily enough, the
]ABS don't agree with.
Look again. If you can't understand figure comparisons....perhaps
a graph might help?
(http://www.ssaa.org.au/Doc24.htm.)
>>Your problem is that you are mixing up home invasions (which are all aimed
>>at being violent) with break and enters. The latter does not seek a
>>confrontation, and will more likely run if spotted than "fight for the
>>loot".
>
>Herez how it works...for the Nth time.....[i]burglar(who may well be a
>drugged-
>out psycho) does burglary not caring whether or not victim is home;
]If they did not care, they would not bother using stealth, which is fairly
]uncommon.
Ever heard of different levels of stealth?
>[ii]burglar is confronted by home-owner(who doesn't fancy drugged out
>psychos roaming about his abode un-invited!); [iii]burglary becomes
>'aggravated burglary' and [iv]now is equal(for all intents and purposes)
>to 'home invasion'
>got that? Or will I have to repeat it an Nth+1th time?
>Hmmm......?!
]What am I not making clear? Someone breaking in for theft will use
stealth,
]and they will AVOID confrontation. ie. You make a noise, they take what
]they have and get the hell out.
What am _I_ not making clear? They may use stealth so as to not initially
alert the: neighbours, neighbours' dog, passing motorists, whatever.
The point is: IF THEY BREAK INTO a HOUSE WHEN THE
OCCUPANTS are MOST LIKELY HOME, THEY CLEARLY DON'T GIVE A
TOSS ABOUT WHETHER THEY ARE HOME OR NOT?
Why is this so? Quite simply because: they have now no longer
a fear of confronting householders armed with firearms.
"Residential burglars devote considerable thought, time and
effort to locating homes that are unoccupied. In interviews with
burglars in a Pennsylvania prison, Rengert & Wasilchick
(Rengert, George & John Wasilchick. 1985. 'Suburban Burglary:
A Time and Place for Everything' Springfield, Ill: Charles Thomas)
found that nearly all the 2 hours spent on the average suburban
burglary was devoted to locating an appropriate target, casing the
home and making sure no one was at home. There are at least two
reasons why burglars make this considerable investment of time
and effort: to avoid arrest and to avoid getting shot. Several
burglars in this study reported that they avoided late night
burglaries because it was too difficult to tell if anyone was home,
explaining, 'That`s the way to get shot' (Rengert & Wasilchick, 1985;
pg 30) Burglars also stated that they avoided neighbourhoods occupied
by persons of a different race because, 'You`ll get shot if you're
caught there'(pg 62, ibid) Giving weight to these opinions, one of
the 31 burglars admitted to having been shot on the job(pg 98, ibid)
In the Wright-Rossi survey,(Wright, James D & Peter H Rossi 1985.
'The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons';
National Institute of Justice Report. Washington DC: US Government
Printing Office), 73% of felons who had committed a burglary or
violent crime agreed that 'one reason burglars avoid houses
when people are at home is that they fear being shot'......The
non-confrontational nature of most burglaries is a major reason
why associated deaths and injuries are so rare--an absent
victim cannot be injured. Don Kates('Handgun Prohibition and
the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment', Michigan Law
Review, 82:204-73; pg 269) argued that victim gun ownership
is a major reason for the non-confrontational nature of burglary
and is therefore to be credited with reducing deaths and
injuries by its deterrent effects. _This_ _possible_ _benefit_
_is_ _enjoyed_ _by_ _all_ _potential_ _burglary_ _victims_, _not_
_just_ _those_ _who_ _own_ _guns_, *because burglars seeking to
avoid confrontation usually cannot know exactly which homes
have guns, and therefore must attempt to avoid all occupied
premises*"
('Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America' Gary Kleck,
Aldine de Gruyter, New York, 1991, pp138-139; my emphasis)
Sorry....what serious academic surveys were u quoting from again?
Allowing for cultural differences, these trends could
be argued as also being the case in Oz. That is:
more widespread gun ownership==less burglaries==
less confrontation with burglars. The significant increase
in burglary rates post-Gun Grab is just too much of
a coincidence to be passed over!
>>That you've made up.
>Check that other thread I mentioned...therez a discussion on
>increased violent crimes there.
>>> Violent crime has sky-rocketed(especially post Gun Grab);
>>
>>Show me your statistics. The ABS reports:
>>
>>Break Ins 1993: 4.4%, 1998: 5.0%.
>>Attempted Break Ins 1993: 3.1%, 1998: 3.2%
>>
>>These are the crimes we are talking about. Why are you talking about
>>violent crimes? Oh that's right, you think all break and enters are
>>violent. Even if they were violent, can you show me where they have
>>"skyrocketed"?
>
>>(http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/c311215.NSF/6718888106e6a09bca2567d0001a
f
>2
>>de/8ab53dc7c24e6971ca2567220072e98d)
>
>Yeah....of course, we don't have the 1999 figures yet.
]So what? The gun laws did not change in 1999 did they. Your figures below
]are for 1998 as well.
Yep! Thatz right! The gun laws DID NOT CHANGE in 1999(certainly not
for the better, anyway). Consequently,we will doubtless see the
dramatic and hair-raising implications of this reflected in the
burgeoning crime statistics.
> When they appear,
>no doubt u'll be changing yr shit-eating tune......!
]Oh I'm sure, Jimbo. I'm sure they'll "skyrocket".
Believe it, SCHMUCK! They'll go through the roof!
In the meantime, chew on this.....
********************************
Article from the Melbourne Herald Sun_news pictorial,
thurs, april 29,1999; pg 10
Title: Syringe robbery fear. Needle threats soar by 100%
by:peter mickelburough (chief police reporter)
Recorded crimes with a weapon in Victoria:
Year: 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 (half year)
Firearm
447 372 473 485 520 256
knife
1289 868 748 1410 1853 943
bar/bat
391 256 233 363 457 254
Bottle/glass
241 179 136 246 306 163
Syringe
32 19 31 83 141 187
(dunno wot all the fuss about ‘syringes' is! )
(*Note_i:These are official police figure....the same type
of figures utilised by ABS;
*Note_ii:The 1999 figures are only for the ½-yr, but already
show an ominous trend;
*Note_iii: Since Vctr & NSW have the largest ppltns, _by_far_
of all the mainland states and, hence, the largest nmbr of crims
we would expect increasing violent crime rates, if any, to
be most dramatically mirrored there;
*Note_iv:These figures are for violent crime, generally.
There is no delineation re: unlawful entries. However,
it is probably fair to say[and taking into account the
significant increase in 1998 unlawful entries] that, if
violent crimes generally rise, then so do burglaries.
Also, we do not know how many of these ‘recorded
crimes with a weapon' involved home invasions and/or
aggravated burglaries/burglaries. Once, again, it
is probably fair to say _at least_ some. And, hence,
these have increased;
*Note_v: apologies in advance for any formatting prblms!)
********************************
>U'v also got the wrong link.........u should have gone here:
>http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/c311215.NSF/Australia+Now+-+A+Statistical+
P
>rofile/2C2A842ACC44F31DCA2567220072E990.
]The above link works for me. What's wrong, you don't like the figures I
]posted above? It means that breakins occur to only 5% of households, up
]from 4.4% in 1993. Hardly skyrocketing.
Perhaps we're talking about two different sets of figures from the ABS
Is the ABS being shifty here? Wotz going on?
NO: _YOUR'RE_ the one whoz GOT it WRONG, pal....
The figure show almost an _8.5%_ increase from 1996-1998 in
unlawful entries. Here they are again.......
1996 1997 1998
Unlawful entry with intent
Involving the taking of property
313,902 332,525 343,256
Other
88,177 89,044 92,414
Total
402,079 421,569 435,670
Here's the break-down. I'm cut/pasting directly from the
site(http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/c311215.NSF/Australia+Now+-+A+Statisti
cal+Profile/2C2A842ACC 44F31DCA2567220072E990.)
********************
Property crime In 1998 there were 435,670 offences nationally recorded by
police as relating to unlawful entry into premises with intent. Of these
offences, 343,256 (79%) involved either actual or intended taking of
property.
A further 92,414 offences (21%) were recorded where the unlawful entry was
made with the intention to commit some other form of criminal act, such as
assault or property damage.
********************
We may speculate, with some degree of certainty, that the 92,414
offences may well have involved
entering with intent to steal, _as_well_as_ assault. Why not?
Let's re-emphasise that: In 1998 there were 435,670 offences nationally
recorded by police as relating to unlawful entry into premises with intent.
Of these offences, 343,256 (79%) involved either actual or intended taking
of property.
*Now: what part of that can't you seem to understand?
Please explain! I'm genuinely concerned!*
****************************************
%increase of unlawful break-enter offncs:
[(343256-313902)/313902]*100 = 9.35% apprx;
%increase of ‘unlawful enter' offncs with intent to assault and/or other:
[(92414-88177)/88177]*100 = 4.8%
%increase of Total:
[(435670-402079)/402079]*100 = 8.35% apprx...call it 8.4% ‘rounded off'
****************************************
Geeeezz.....ain't Math fun?!
<snippo!>
]That article dealt with armed robbery, which includes the holding up of
]banks, shops, service stations etc. The important figures are the property
]ones, "...offences against property (unlawful entry with intent, motor
]vehicle theft and other theft)". It does not tell you which of these are
]done by an armed person, however, it does list a % of how many people are
]there to rob, compared to those who wish to harm the occupants or property
]itself.
We could equally argue that those figures(re: armed burglars) are included
_n
the_ ‘armed robbery' figures; which, of course, _do_ show a dramatic
increase[10850 from 6256...a (wait for it!)..[.(10850-6256)/6256]*100 =
_73.4%_ increase!
]The total number of unlawful entries increased by 7.8% between 1996 and
]1998. Not much of a skyrocket.
It's a significant, if not a substantial increase. And the total nmbr
increased
by almost 8.5%, _NOT_ 7.8%! GET it RIGHT!
Also, compare the previous trends:
http://www.ssaa.org.au/UNLAWFULENTRY9697STATS.HTML.
]In 1998, of all unlawful entries, 79% were carried out with the intent to
]steal property. The remaining 21% were carried out with the intent to harm
]the occupants or property.
]So that means, to our argument, Jimbo, that 79% of the time, the thief is
]there to steal. The other 21% are the ones intent on smashing either you
or
]your property.
Nope it doesn't....because we don't know how much ‘overlap'[if any] there
is in the ‘armed robbery' stats for a start. Also, we don't know what
type of ‘properties' the 21% is referring to _and_ what % of the 79%
overlaps
with the 21%[if any]. We also do not know what % of the 79% were
aware of(or even cared) if the owner was home or not. Those are
called HIDDEN VARIABLES, if you ever bother to study statistics!
>>>longer gaol terms are being handed out; crimes of violence are becoming
>>>more frequent and vicious.
>
>>Crimes of violence have no bearing on break and enters, unless it is one
of
>>the few that turn violent, so your point is not valid.
>
>Ever heard of AGGRAVATED BURGLARY? Unfortunately, we don't
>have a finely-tuned statistical break-down of how many of these
>burglaries involved some kind of violence.
]True, but we could, for your arguments sake, say that ALL of the 21%
]committed assault, though this is unlikely, considering the 21% figure
takes
]into account not only assaulters, but property vandals as well.
And we could equally well say that, for the former category, of 79%
most, if not all, couldn't have given a toss if there was someone home or
not and would have been prepared to be counted among the 21% if need
arose!
(Bearing in mind, of course, that the first category rose by almost
9.4%.....a
Not insubstantial increase in anyone's lingo!)
> Or, how the ABS defines
>'a burglary'.
]Yeh, it makes the distinction at the top...
]"Nationally, offences against property (unlawful entry with intent, motor
]vehicle theft and other theft)" - PROPERTY
]"This age group had the highest victimisation rates for manslaughter,
sexual
]assault, kidnapping/abduction, armed robbery and unarmed robbery" -
PERSONAL
overlap, hidden variables, &c.........how many of the 21% have ever
constituted the 79% &c &c.....those studies just haven't been done have
they?
(No blame on the ABS...they've doubtless only got the resources to perform
basic analyses....thatz where books like Kleck's are invaluable, despite
the slight cultural discrepancies!)
> And whether or not there is any cross-over between
>'assaults' and violence. Until, we do, YOU haven't got a point........so
>don't go
>'round saying MY point is invalid!
]The only think that skyrocketed was armed robbery, which is not committed
]against the householder according to these figures. If it did, then the
]armed and unarmed robbery figures would be WAY in excess of the total
number
]of unlawful entries.
And ‘armed robbery' is defined as......? U'd be amazed and astounded at
some of the offences the cops class as ‘armed robbery' Cops are also
fond of ‘multiple charges' Thus, a burglar who pulls a weapon on a
house-holder _could_ be charged with:
[i]burglary;[ii]aggravated burglary and/or[iii]armed robbery.
See the prblm?!
]so basically, your point is not relevant (unless you want to talk about
]defending your business or personal self in the street and not your home).
Itz relevant.........more than relevant! Depressingly so!
>>> Hence, the perpertrators are meaner,
>
>>Not for simple break and enters. Violent crime covers a lot of different
>>crimes, and break and enters are seldom violent.
>
>Here we go again....we just don't know.....however, we DO know
>that most of these burglaries are committed by DRUGGOs, who
>are not renowned for mental stability. Sorry: I don't regard some
>thug floating around my living-room un-invited at 3a.m as a candidate
>for the Noble Peace Prize!
]I regard him as some punk on drugs who wants to flog all my nice gear to
buy
]more drugs.
....and a dangerous punk at that. OTW, he wouldn't be so cavalier about
invading yr space knowing u might just be occupying it.
>>>more vicious and more homicidal than they used to be.
>>>Want to dispute any of that?
>>I just did.
>
>The hell you did......!
]Read above :)
ditto
>>> Or perhaps you'd care to
>>>live in a slightly-more down-market area and get some
>>>'on the job' experience yrself? Hmmm.......?
>>
>>So you're a ghetto person, eh? Here's a hint: move. If your life is in
>>SUCH danger, move.
>
>U live where yr forced to live by economic circumstances.
>Do you think I live in the sort of neighbourhood I do by _CHOICE, u
>effin' WANKER?!
]Bullshit, if you really feared for your life you'd move to another cheap
]area that lacked the violence your area does. I just moved from a dodgey
]neighbourhood. The Feds had the place under surveillance for weeks because
]of an organised drug job going on through one of the tenants. Not to
]mention all the domestics and evictions the police had to stop around for.
]Solution? Move to another cheap neighbourhood. You'll find there are some
]shit ones, and some relatively good ones.
U don't know the Mlbrn area too well do you? Most, if not all,
of the ‘cheapo' areas have high crime rates. Many of them were
previously settled by, or settled later by, Housing Commission tenants
who are, basically, mostly low-lifes and boob heads.(why? Because
no decent Real Estate Agent would rent to them!) That's why anyone who
knows Mlbrn well lives either some way out(in semi-rural areas) or
in the Eastern suburbs....sometimes called ‘the stockbroker belt'
Naturally, the prices for renting and buying here reflect this.
Sorry: I live where I live because of economic and financial constraints.
PERIOD!
>>Err, this was 1992-1995. Here's a fact that may astound you: crime
>existed
>>before they took away assault rifles. Another fact: you do not need a
>semi
>>auto rifle to kill someone.
>
>Here's a fact that may astound YOU: crime has _risen_ (I'd say
>substantially)
]Armed robbery. Don't you think that contradicts the gun grab? More
robbers
]are arming themselves, but less of the population have guns. Hmmmmmm.
Not at all. Why? Because crims always find guns easy to get.
And where civilian guns are scarce, a burgeoning black market soon
appears. Availble to _crims_ of course(junkies, bikies,thugs,armed robbers,
burglars, whoever)
_NOT_ to Joe Q Public! Thatz why Prfssr John Lott wrote a book called
"More Guns Equals Less Crime" Perhaps you should read it?!
>since they TOOK AWAY ASSAULT RIFLES(there you go with yr straw men
>again....a .22 semi-auto isn't an ASSAULT RIFLE you FUCKWIT!)
]You specified .22 afterwards you bloody idiot.
Yr the one brought up the term ‘assault rifles' I never initially mentioned
it.
Or do you class all semi-auto rifles as ‘assault rifles' If so, yr in good
company with yr anti-gun loon mates!
>No: u _don't_ need an ASSAULT rifle to kill someone. A .22 semi-auto will
>do just as well....or a semi-auto shtgn.....or even a pump-action
>shotgun....or
>even a centrefire/civilian semi-auto...ALL NOW PROSCRIBED by the
>Gun Grabbers!
]You don't understand do you? If you cared so much about your need to kill
]perps to save your life, you'd buy a bloody pistol. But this doesn't seem
]to make any difference to you does it? So I have to assume you're ranting
]on about the other guns just because they're no longer available, not
]because you're really interested in effectively wiping out thieves.
I'm ranting on about guns because me, and people I know, are now in DANGER
of being molested by rampaging thugs, thnx to the Gun Grab.
Pistols are difficult to get in Victr(legally, that is!) and involve a
substantial
waiting period, expensive storage requirements and mind-numbing bureaucratic
bullshit. Also, a pistol licence can be revoked more or less on a whim by
_ANY_ police officer,firearm bureaucrat or local GP and takes months, if not
years(two or three, by the time it gets to a court) to have re-instated!
Also: you cannot put down on your application form as
‘Reason for owning pistol'....self-protection!
<snippo!>
>U dunno wot the HELL yr saying and haven't since u decided to BUTT IN
>to this post! Next time a drugged-out psycho turns up in yr bed-room at
>3a.m, I'll read with interest how y'all sat down and had a nice cup of tea
>and a place of iced vo-vos. U INSUFFERABLE FUCKWIT U!
]Oh, now you've gone off the deep end, haven't you? I said I'd shoot down
]any real threat to my livelihood. You WANT to kill anything that moves
that
]shouldn't be on your property, "just incase".
NOT ‘anything that moves' Just thugs that move around my
living-room/bed-room
uninvited and in a threatening manner at 3 o bloody clock in the morning!
<snippo!>
>....sorry, thatz an 8.4% increase, from 1996, according to my
>clcltr. This agrees more or less with an article in the 'Bulletin'
>mgzn last year citing an increase between 9-11% in burglaries.
]Err, my figures are "of the total number of households". ie. of all
]households, 5% were burgled this year. In 1993 this was 4.4%.
We're talking about _increases_, so that is misleading.
The stats at:
http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/c311215.NSF/Australia+Now+-+A+Statistical+P
rofile/2C2A842ACC44F 31DCA2567220072E990.
Are _crimes recorded by police_...i.e: related to actual events...actual
happenings.
As in: Yes, there _were_ such and such a nmbr of burglaries in 1998.
There _was_ such and such an increase from the previous 1/2/3/whatever years
]Your figures are "of the crimes committed." Thus the different %. And is
]8.4% a massive increase? Is it a skyrocket?
...it is when compared to the increases for the previous years....as here:
http://www.ssaa.org.au/UNLAWFULENTRY9697STATS.HTML.
>>>Get this through your THICK SKULL: when a burglar decides to
>>>burgle a residence and doesn't care if the owner is home or not....
>>>THAT is TANTAMOUNT to a HOME INVASION!
>>Why do you think they *usually* commit a break in at night? Because they
>do
>>not want to be seen by neighbours, and they do not want to be seen by the
>>home owners. The early morning is a time when they think they can get in
>>and out without being spotted.
>
>Where are the home owners at night? Aren't they at home?
]Asleep, Einstein.
Sure they are, Mr Hawking! They're all in comas...and unable to
be woken by: creaking floorboards, moving furniture, breaking windows,
sneezing, coughing,talking, whatever.....are we talking about burglars
or friggin' GHOSTS?!
>If they didn't want to confront the owners, the ideal time would be
>_during the day_. Ok: they might be seen(but not if they're careful)
>'Neighbourhood Watch' ain't worth a crock!
]The risk of being seen and having their vehicle seen in the day time is too
]high, compared to risking waking up the owners at night.
..not if most people in the neighbourhood are also at work, the vehicle is
parked in a secluded spot/some distance away, they are wearing over-alls and
look like regular workmen, the people in the neighbourhood couldn't
give a toss what happens to their neighbours &c &c....u know!
All the things that most burglars ‘check out' before they go a burgurgling!
>>A home invasion is aimed at harrassing and harming the occupants. I've
>said
>>this like 4 times, which part do you not get?
>
>No....itz the part YOU don't get.....and I'v said it THREE TIMES now....
>burglar confronts home-owner==aggravated burglary ~home invasion!
>Same bloke, differrent haircut!
]Alright, well you call it whatever you want if it makes you happy, I'm
going
]by the police defintion (or what they report it as to the papers in press
]releases).
Perhaps you'd care to explain the fine line of distinction between
‘aggravated burglary' and ‘home invasion'?!
>>>Clearly u don't! BTW: I don't go by the mainstream
>>>media....I go by the local newspapers
>>Local newspapers are the mainstream media. Local newspapers are tabloids.
>>Tabloids are more prone to fantasy thatn larger papers.
>Local newspapers are _NOT_ the mainstream media. For a start,
>it is much easier to get a 'Letter to the Editor' pblshd....so their facts,
>if incorrect, can be easily challenged(unlike Murdoch's comix and
>the Spencer Street Soviet)
>They are also not tabloids; at least no more than the metropolitan
>newspapers masquerading as 'serious opinion' and 'considered analysis',
>but which is just thinly disguised politically correct claptrap!
]That's a really interesting opinion. I studied Journalism, and
]unfortunately for you, all local, metropolitan, regional and national
papers
]are considered mainstream
by who? Local papers rely on the local community to keep going.
If they don't regularly publish people's letters when they
have a valid complaint and at least make a show of carefully
investigating local concerns, their readership is going to plummet,
then their advertising and then.....well....u get the picture!
]UNLESS they specify a certain bias, or write to a
]niche readership. Local papers are also considered (by Journalists anyway)
]to be tabloids.
Those wouldn't be the same journos who make up the
anti-gun loon brigade, would it?
]Maybe you should go to your paper and tell them they're not mainstream
]though, that would add some humour to their morning.
They're not ‘mainstream' in the sense the big metro dailies are...and
_u_ know it. U'v just gotta look at some of the jerk-offs writing
‘opinion pieces' in the metro broadsheets! Try the Courier-Mail!
Its _chockas_ with femi-nazi, politically correct THUGs!
>>> and the ABS figures.
>>Well now I know you are simply lying, as above, the ABS shows a very
slight
>>increase in break ins.
>
>Well now, I know you simply don't know what the hell yr talking about,
>because the ABS figures show almost a 8½% increase in break-ins.
>That ain't _slight_. 0.8 is slight....BUT NOT 8+%
]Sorry, you're right... I am wrong, 4.4 to 5% = 0.6% increase... sorry about
]that.
Sorry..u got ya head up ya rectum.
The increase is 9.4% from two year previous, and 8.5% for total burglaries
>>>They all show _skyrocketing_ violent crime right here in good
>>>ol' Oz! What planet are u living on?!
>>The only think skyrocketing is your imagination. Actually visiting the
ABS
>>website might help, rather than just pretending.
>
>Take yr own advice And do some serious reading on constructing arguments
>and backing them up while yr at it!
]But I did, or are you going to tell me my figures aren't actually on the
ABS
]website?
Are u going to tell me mine aren't?
>>>Why shouldn't they?...unless itz _obviously_ a real one...like an under
>>>and over 12G?
>>I'm not even going to bother answering that, it is the dumbest thing I've
>>read for quite some time.
>
>.......no dumber than the rubbish u'v been posting up!
]No it is seriously dumb to assume that the average robber is going to
chance
]his life on your gun not being loaded. That's even too dumb for a B-grade
]action flick.
It'd be seriously dumb if we lived in the land of B-grade flicks.
Since we don't, it has to qualify as a realistic possiblity, at least!
>>>itz a possibility.....especially if the punk thinks he's got into the
>>>house without being noticed...
>>
>>I know this must seem like a big action comic to you, but these are real
>>people who have real fears. They don't just throw their lives away on the
>>small chance that your gun isn't loaded.
>
>Ho hum! They're scumbags....end of story. They enter at their own
>risk, AFAIMC!
]Which doesn't make the any less real as people. If it were you, robbing
]someone, would you throw yourself at a gun and hope the thing wasn't
loaded?
Nope...but then I don't go ‘round robbing people's houses!
]Drop the argument, it only makes sense if the thief is fucked on drugs,
]which most wouldn't be until they got home (and sold your shit).
It makes sense in Oz because Oz ain't Texas!...where u can be almost
100% certain that if someone flashes a gun at you it is:[i]real;
[ii]loaded and [iii]going to be used on you if you do not follow
instructions _
to_ _the_ _letter_ Don't forget(at least in Victr) the cops classify
realistic-looking water pistols as guns!
[people have even gone to court for selling them at local flea markets! I
SHIT YOU NOT!]
>>It's not really most States AFAIK. In most states you have to show that
>you
>>tried to evade contact, ie. you can only shoot them when you are cornered
>>and in fear of your life. In other states you can nail them just for
being
>>there.
>
>Nearly all southern/mid-western and northern states(Wyoming, Montana, Idaho
>&c)
>make it legal to shoot burglars These are also the states that have enacted
>CC laws and where crime has _plummeted_ accordingly.....in most of the
>Eastern and
>Western seaboard states(New York, California, Washington, Oregon) it is
>not legal to do so, but these are not in the majority!
]While there's some good points attributed to gun ownership, there are also
]some bad ones, ie. like the type of people that are allowed to own one, and
]the lack of knowledge these morons have of owning, maintaining, and
securing
]a firearm. Those dicks are also the reason for those terrible accidents,
]and they end up giving the responsible gun owners a bad name.
The good points outweigh the bad ones by a country mile. There are good and
bad points about just about everything: cars, hammers, fire,
crowbars,petrol...whatever!
"The difference between a free man and a slave is the right to possess arms,
not so much,
as has been stated, for the purpose of defending his property as his
liberty. Neither can he do,
if deprived of those arms, in the hour of danger"
[Sir William Blackstone]
"The totalitarian state can do great things. But there is one thing
they cannot do: they cannot give the factory worker a rifle and tell him
to take it home and keep it in his bedroom. That rifle, hanging on the
wall of the working-class flat or the labourer's cottage, is the symbol of
democracy"
[George Orwell: from ‘George Orwell: A Life', by B Crick, Penguin Books,
Harmondsworth, 1980; pg 399]
>>A burglary or break in is a stealthy process, however, it is also
committed
>>when the occupants are asleep (as well as not home).
>
>...and with the attendant risk of alerting the owners(which the thugs
>no longer give a toss about, of course!)
]Maybe not, but AGAIN:
]a) why escalate your crime from a break and enter to an assault or murder?
Because you are a drugged-out psycho anyway!
]b) why risk your livelihood when you can run off and try robbing another
]house in another neighbourhood?
Because, being a drugged out psycho, you are not a rational thinker
anyway and, being a crim and a thug, you don't give two and a half
tosses about someone else's pain or discomfort AS LONG as YOU GET
WHAT YOU WANT!
>>> A home invasion is one where the Thug[s] couldn't
>>>give a TOSS if the occupant is home or not.....and, even the commonly
>>>accepted idea of 'home invasions' is not accurate They don't all involve
>>>kicking down the front door.....some involve stealthy entry, with the
>>>thugs being disguised to avoid 'detection' anyway!
>
>>But their main purpose is to attack the occupants whilst robbing. They
are
>>also likely to be armed.
>Their main purpose is to get what they came for. It is, in effect, an
>'armed robbery' in the home. As with 'armed robberies', if the
>victims start getting stroppy, the violence is escalated accordingly!
]Yes but it usually happens to people who have safes etc. or somethingn
]valuable that the robbers need the home owner to be present, to attain.
Lots of people have safes. Or hidden cash. Or hidden jewelery.
>>Yes, and? I agree a home invader will have a weapon (probably a gun),
>while
>>a thief is unlikely to.
>
>why not? A home invader will almost certainly have a weapon.
]Yes, otherwise they're not really home invading (or doing a good job of
it).
Burgling a house where you know the owners are likely to be home,
knowing that you may end up confronting them and not giving a toss is
tantamount to home invasion, AFAIMC. We may also add:
home invaders can easily ‘diminish' into burglars if:[a]
they know no-one is likely to be home anyway and [b]
they can easily get what they want with a minimum of effort.
>A 'burglar' may _well_ have one also...maybe less likely than
>the armed bandit but certainly a definite possibility...._too_
>definite to pussy-foot around with the friggin' jerk!
]Who's pussy footing?
YOU are...if you treat a psychotic schmuck wandering around
yr living-room/bed-room at 3a.m. as just someone who
has accidentally strayed into the wrong house..."ooopss!
Sorry, sir....I was looking for Mrs Bloggs' house!"
><snip>
>>>>This is bullshit. Gun Grab has done NOTHING against pistols. Do you
>>think
>>>>burglars believe that there is no risk now that all of the SA Rifles,
>pump
>>>>action and SA shotties, and FA Assault Rifles are gone?
>>>Yep! Precisely! Why? Because legal pistol ownership was _always_
>>>miniscule.
>
>
>>So bolt action rifles don't hurt crims?
>
>U still don't get it do you? The storage requirements(and the legal
>penalties attached for use) make the bolt action rifles permitted under
>the Gun Grab Laws little better than USELESS.
]Funny, the case I cited before (with gun owner shooting kid who breaks
]through glass door) was committed in a low light setting with a high
powered
]bolt action rifle.
Really? Perhaps the owner wasn't complying with the storage
requirements then? (Naughty, naughty....!)
Was the owner: an invalid, old age pensioner,
female? Experienced gun owner? Was the incident pre- or post-
Gun Grab?
So many questions, so few answers......!
>We also have the fact that pensioners, invalids and even some
>women find them more difficult to operate than semi-autos(which require
>a minimum of strength, dexterity and ability.....u just 'cock' it
>and[assuming
>the safety is 'off'] pull da trigga........result: dead THUG!)
]All of these people are better off with a pistol, aren't they?! The pistol
]is SA, but also much lighter.
Guess they can just hop, skip and jump down to the local hardware store
and buy one, no problemos!?
DAMN! Why didn't I think of that?
Ooppps......is this Arizona, Texas, Wyoming?
SHIT! It's Oz! No WONDER I haven't got me 475 Wildey Auto-Mag ready
and waiting! DRAT!
>>>Yeah? Well, unfortunately for yr little argument, most gun owners didn't
>>>_own_ pistols/revolvers. They owned long-arms. The greatest % of
>>>these long-arms are now categorised as 'proscribed'. Sure, some have
>>>since gone out and purchased alternatives. However, the ludicrous storage
>>>requirements and bureaucratic bullshit involved easily sets the thug's
>>>mind at rest regarding confrontations with armed house-holders.
>
>>That's because most gun owners do not buy guns for home protection.
>They're
>>mostly sportsmen.
>
>Hahahha...yeah! _NOW_ they don't...the Gun Grabbers have well and truly
>seen to that. The last thing these marxist maggots want is people defending
>themselves in their own homes.
]HAHA You're a militia wannabee aren't ya! "Marxist maggots." Please!
The Gun Grabbers have clear connections with the UN. The UN has
a strong Marxist bias. Marxists are murderers. Murderers are maggots!
Hence, Marxists are maggots!
Get it?!
]Why keep pistols legal (or any guns for that matter)?
Because the laws say to...?
And if you don't you go to gaol?
Answer: change the politicians and change the laws!
>>And pre-gun grab, the rules were no less stringent for SA rifles either.
>Nope! The penalties for possessing (unlicensed) SAs were eff' all! They've
>been increased significantly! They are now proscribed weapons!
]No... for storage.
Sorry.....are centre-fire semi-autos(or even rim-fire semi autos) now legal
to own? Must have missed that one!
>All penalties associated with firearms have now been increased.
>We may also mention the fact that even the cops are _different_
>today...there are many more 19-yr old politically correct punks and
>20-yr old femi-Nazis then there previously were! Most, if not all,
>of the old style cops(who exercised a certain amount of give-and-take)
>are gone, replaced by these FREAKS!
]The average *entry level* age of a police officer is 27 in QLD. Remember
]the old style cops are the ones in charge still, as the new cops are still
]filling in the lower ranks. Not that you'd care, as they're simply the
]executive arm of the "marxist maggots" anyway.
Not in Victoria. And I _was_ talking about Victoria(and, NSW, if you like!)
And if a guvmint is run by marxists,then they are maggots...why?
Because marxists are maggots! U'v got plenty up in Qlnsnd.
But, then, you bananna benders were always a bit sloooowwww on
the uptake. Thatz why u'v always needed us Vics to run the
friggin' joint for yez! Guess the likes of Peter Beatme is
just a good ol' boy, huh?
Have a look at some of yr other ‘good ol' boys' right here.....
http://lockstockandbarrel.org/Documents/HOUSE-GARDEN.htm.
]Guess what profession I'm going into after working overseas? ;)
Sorry...u musta mistaken me for someone who gives a RAT's ARSE!
>>>and b) if your life is in danger, you can blow
>>>>someone away.
>>>
>>>Sure u can....but expect to be CHARGED for so doing!
>>>This ain't Kenneshaw Co. Georgia mate!
>>
>>No, if your life is in danger, and you've made this obvious to the police,
>>they will not bother charging you. However, if you are a little
>>inconsistent or the police deem it necessary to hear from the coroner,
than
>>they will charge you.
>
>blah blah blah......as soon as u open yr mouth, yr GONE! Thatz the
>rule of thumb! Wake up to yr-self!
]Good response. Thoroughly convincing.
Just like yr ‘arguments'
About as convincing as the Tooth Fairy!
<snippo!>
>I'm not a pistol fan, nor have i ever been.
]Then you musn't be to keen on saving your skin. I mean, if you want to
]shoot someone in your home, a pistol is a good way to do so. Seeing the
]bolt action rifle is awkward for such a situation, why not buy a pistol?
Or
]are you just whinging for no reason, and not really interested on getting a
]gun for home protection?
I'v explained all that above. The requirements for owning pistols in
Victoria are onerous and time-consuming. I also do not feel
like complying with their bureaucratic bullshit and going to
all that trouble to have the friggin' thing taken off me on some
copper's WHIM!
> Besides, there is even more
>bureaucratic bullshit involved than buying a bolt-action. No thnx!
]Again, safety doesn't seem to be THAT big a deal to you if you can't wait
]through it.
Money is also a consideration. Money in the form of: expensive storage
requirements and expensive legal costs to get the bloody thing back again
if i lose it!
>I'll just wait for another election or two until these politcal maggots
>feel the back-lash of dis-enfranchised shooters and are FORCED to
>change the Gun Grab Laws. Its already happening!
]Yeah, that massive gun owner population will just hammer the Government.
We
]have virtually no voice, and whenever we do get a voice, they give us a
]redneck spokesperson who all the latte drinkers think are "bad type right
]wingers". So we're fucked.
U had 11 One Nation members elected in Queensland in 1998 partly on the
strength of the ‘pro-gun' vote. The proof of that is in the private members'
Bill that was tabled in the Queensland Parliament shortly thereafter(and
defeated
because the Libs sided with Labor against it)
U also have the savaging Howard received at the Federal election(again
due largely to One Nation prefernces going to Labor[whose primary vote
hardly moved])
Finally, you have the DRUBBING jeff.com received in Victoria...where there
are BIG HEAPS of dis-affected gun owners and where three(in fact, almost
FIVE)
independents were elected on the strength of the pro-gun vote!
As for ‘red-neck' spokesmen: maybe u need a few. The old fossils that
constituted the old guard at SSAA haven't achieved a hell of a lot!
Most people want guns now for SELF-PROTECTION! Not to shoot ducks or
clay pigeons! They want SELF-PROTECTION against rampaging THUGs!
>>> and is ideal
>>>for old-age pensioners, invalids or single mums.....the people who
>>>MOST need them NOW!
>
>>A pistol is even more ideal.
>
>and much harder to get a licence for......
]Have you tried?
I don't have to...I know what the requirements are in Victoria.
It's all in writing.....those requirements aren't going to magically
disappear when you make an application...!
>and much harder to
>meet the storage requirements.....
]They're sensible requirements if you have kids around the home.
They're BULLSHIT requirements...like all gun laws....BULL_SHIT_!
>and much easier to lose
>for some slight violation of the many restrictions......&c!
]And how would one be caught for one of those?
Anything from looking at the missus funny one morning over the
Corn Flakes to one of the neighbours' thinking yr acting a bit funny....!
>>>>You're deluded!
>>>And yr brain-washed!
>>By who? You a) watch too many movies, b) read too many tabloids, and c)
>>never actually look up figures.
>
>By the media. You:(a)believe too much bullshit from the eedjit box and the
>tabloids;
]Oh, so you're using my comebacks on me?
U reap wot u sow!
]But that doesn't work jimbo, because you're the only one citing
sensationalist
]dribble, "every robbers a drug fucked psycho, itching to bleed you dry" etc
etc.
No sensationalist dribble[sic] around here, BUCKO...not
from my side of the fence, anyway....just facts, FACTS and _FACTS_!
>(b)don't check yr facts and (c)don't know how to analyse facts when they're
>presented to you
]LOL! I guess you say that to all the people you're arguing with... it
]sounds good, but it just isn't true.
No....just to people for whom it IS true!
>>Who is trying to brainwash me to make me say that break ins are not
>commonly
>>violent?
>>Who is trying to brainwash me to make me say that you shouldn't shoot an
>>unarmed, non-advancing perp?
>
>The politically correct media thugs who reckon that a man doesn't have
>a right to defend himself and his family in his own home. Seems to me
>u'v fallen for it hook, line and sinker!
]Why am I buying a Glock 22 then, you moron?
I don't know and I don't care, _champ_! But I _do_ know one thing....
U didn't put ‘home protection' on yr application form....
Because, if you did, you sure as hell _wouldn't_ be buying one!
>>Maybe there's a black helicopter over my house manipulating my mind with
>>some psi equipment?
>No....but there's sure as hell a black eedjit box sitting in the corner of
>yr
>lounge-room and filling yr head with anti-gun loon BULLSHIT!
>Spend more time on the 'Net perusing SSAA sites and the appropriate
>links.
]Anti-gun eh? hahahaha You don't even own a gun, or seem to be getting one.
I'v owned them...i do so no longer. I await the day when this bunch of
UN/globalist sycophants is going to get the size-20 hobnailed boot up
the BUM they so richly deserve. When that happens, _then_ I will
go out and get _another_ one!
]You just seem to have nothing better to do that make yourself look like a
]twat with little southern drawl accents, anti-government lunacies, and
]anti-responsibility statements.
I do it to annoy all the politically correct pricks out there on USENET!
I seem to be succeding reasonably well!
>>>>>>Nope, neither have you (discounting movies).
>>>>
>>>>>Sorry...I _HAVE_ Especially around the area where I live.
>>>>
>>>>But you don't own a gun. What did you do when the machete was flying at
>>>>you? Pull out your broadsword and have a sword fight?
>>>
>>>I didn't say it happened to ME.
>
>>So then, your answer should have been "NO". Instead you said you "HAVE"
>>experienced violent perps. You basically lied.
>
>And yr basically full of shit! I'v _seen_ it happening at close range.....
>good enough for you? Doesn't have to happen to YOU personally....
>itz almost as scary!
]Ooooooooooooh, this gets better every time... so first "YOU HAVE
]experience," then we find out it's NOT first hand experience (you know
]someone it happened to), and then you try and say, "IT'S AS GOOD AS first
]hand experience".
Someone getting stabbed to death a few yards from you is just
another one of those ‘everyday ho-hum! type events' is it?
]Now what's close range? A block, two, three? Or are you going to say you
]were in the same house, watching from the sidelines?
Yr getting rather tiresome, u BLONK! Methinks if u were any closer
than 1 kilometre, u'd have to run home and change yr jocks so fast
yr head'd spin!
>>> I said it _happens_, around this
>>>neighbourhood.
>>
>>Well shit, it happens in the neighbourhood next to mine, that must mean I
>>have experience as well.
>
>Pity you haven't experienced it FIRST HAND.....we might not get so
>much pro-thug politically correct Bullshit out of u then!
]Neither have you!
Believe whatever u want......i couldn't give a TOSS!
The fact is I live in an area of Mlbrn that has a high crime
rate! I'v witnessed violent crime(including armed robberies!)
At _close_ range. I was even a police witness in one.
If u don't believe that.....STIFF SHIT! I couldn't give
a rat's ARSE! Go and live in some of the areas I have in Mlbrn...
Or comparable ones in Sydney and then come back with yr bullshit!
>>> Yr only alternative these days is to invest in home
>>>security....dead locks, security grills, alarms, whatever....at
>>>considerable expense!
>>
>>Yes, prevention is a much better method.
>
>.....and a much more costly one. I'll take a .22 semi-auto any day thnx!
]You didn't take any gun at all! If you need a semi-auto rifle to defend
]yourself, and no other gun will do, there's something very wrong with you.
Sorry...I think I _do_ need a .22 semi-auto to defend meself from
psycho-thugs! Since I haven't got a black belt in martial arts,
I'd say it would be ideal!
]In other words, you're full of shit.
And yr overflowin' with it! Call a plumber!
>>>>>Therez heapz of 'em! You should try it sometimes....it gives a whole
>>>>>new perspective to the term 'gun control'!
>>>
>>>>How did you get the perp out of your house, if they're all such crazy
>>>>natural born killers?
>>>
>>>As above....it hasn't happened to me. But it has happened in
>>>the neighbourhood and to people I _know_.
>>
>>So what did they do, shoot them dead?
>
>What with? Non-existent semi-auto .22s?
]What species of cockhead are you?
What species of Fuckwit are _u_?
]What did the people -you know- do about the thugs? Or does everyone you
]know in your neighbourhood only defend themselves with a .22 semiauto
rifle?
Nooo....they don't defend themselves with a .22 semi-auto Wanna know why?
‘Cos(and follow the bouncing ball, schmuck!)
_they_didn't_have_guns_to_do_it_with_because_of_the_1996_Gun_Grab_!
Sooo....u know wot they did? They haddta put up with being bashed and
robbed!
And then make a statement to the cops(when they finally arrived about an
hour later!)
>>>I don't have to worry about 'getting them out of the house',
>>>because they don't get _in_ in the first place...thnx to the
>>>above-mentioned 'security features'
>
>>Which is more sensible than simply readying yourself to mow down
>>bloodthirsty perps.
>
>I see. What are we supposed to do with them? Discuss the weather?
]Err no, keep them out?
Sure......if u can afford the $5000+ for the features. If u can't...TOUGH.
Guess yr
gunna hafta try and discuss sweet nothings with a psycho-thug!
]I don't know, YOU tell me. You're the one who installed security screens.
They were already installed by the owner of the flat.
>>>>> Naturally, there are variations on
>>>>>the theme.....but so wot? The point is, unless u are confident in yr
>>>>martial
>>>>>arts abilities...you are in _REAL_ trouble in such an incident!
>>>
>>>>No. If you have a gun, you are in control.
>>>
>>>Yeahahahhaha....trouble is, hardly anyone's got ONE, nowadays
>>
>>They never did. Previously, the same gun owners merely had MORE guns per
>>person. Now they only have their legal ones left over. If you previously
>>owned a nice semi auto shotgun, and you go give it back under the new
laws,
>>do you think that you would only have owned one shotgun, and do you also
>>think, that this person would not go out and buy themselves something to
>>replace it with?
>
>Bullshit! The gun ownership rate had been estimated as high as 1-in-4
>households
>in Oz.
]What??????? I don't know one person who owns a gun, and I know more than 4
]people. That's pretty fucken unlikely.
Well.....unlikely or not...those are the figures. _PRE_-Gun Grab, of course.
Let's just give ya a fer instance. There were an estimated 850000 SKSs
and SKKs imprtd into Oz from China over the period 1978-1990(Fisher
Firearms,
Sth Aust, if I'm not much mistaken!).
Guess how many were handed in at the Gun Grab?
Virtually NONE.....(i.e: less than 20000) Wonder where they
all are? Hmmmmm........? And, of course, we've got all the other types of
SAs of which
hardly any were handed in too.....SLRs, Mini-14s, M1Crbns,Stirling semi-auto
.22s, &c
Now, I wonder where all _they_ are? The mind boggles!
> Furthermore, the 640,000 handed in was apparently only a _small_
>fraction of the total....many more are still out there..._buried_ probably!
>Geezzz! People just trust their guvmints don't they?!
]Yes, I heard they estimated only 1/3 of the guns were handed in. What I
was
]saying was, most gunowners like to keep a few guns.
Well...if they've kept any of the above...it'll hafta to be underground
somewhere!
>>It depends how long he's been there. Even so, you can lay in ambush
rather
>>than "going to check on that noise" and walking into a trap. Preferably
>>wait by a light switch so that you can stun the perp first and get your
gun
>>on him ASAP.
>
>well,now, we would be doing just that wouldn't we? If we
>didn't live in a shit-eating country run by faggots, femi-nazis and
>UN-appointed commisars?
]Seek help.
Get real!
]Also, they didn't legislate against me owning a handgun or waiting by the
]light, so what are you talking about?
And how long do you think it will be before they do?
The likes of John Crook and Rebecca Peters were talking about it only last
year.
The only thing thatz stopped ‘em so far is the _drubbing_ they've taken
at the ballot box. ‘Course, they don't attribute that to _guns_.
_Guns_ are a taboo subject.
Nevertheless, they may be a back of evil, manipulating, mercenary bastards,
but they're not STOOPID! Thatz why you haven't seen
any _more_ gun lgsltn. But, don't worry.....
They may well try it when they think the coast is clear.
Then, we'll end up like the Japs....
NO private gun ownership and crims armed to the teeth!
Welcome to the Brave New World of the Gun Grabberz!
>>>U should stick with the 'house-holder has a gun' scenario. A _knife_
>>>ain't gunna deter most psychos these days A chain-saw _might_, but
>>>who keeps them in the living-room?!
>>No, no... I said if "they" have a knife, ie. the perp.
>...and thatz about all yr gunna have too. Thnx to the Gun Grabbers!
]No, I'll have a gun.
Jes' don't get too attached to it......it won't be a permanent fixture in
this
country for much longer....unless therez some very radical changes indeed!
>>At this point you're at loggerheads. The only thing you can do is watch
>and
>>allow the thug to escape, or keep the distance between you and the perp,
or
>>fire at the perp if he advances.
>
>just fire at the prick...irrespective of wot he does.......he's already
>lost his chance of surrendering peacefully....so.......!
]Only if he advances does he give up that chance. The other two options do
]not require firing your weapon.
They do for me.........then again, I'v seen thugs at first hand.
Unlike U!
>>[iv]thug make various indeterminate
>>>movements....
>>>maybe escaping, maybe not; [v]householder gives thug final warning;
>>>[vi]thug is moving to another area of the house....window, door,other
side
>>>of room, whatever.....[vii]householder shoots Thug.
>>If you can con the jury/police into believing you were in real threat for
>>your life, you'd probably get away with it. I think trying to follow the
>>perp would be the best bet.
>Of course, you could always try punching his lights out....that would
>save lots of fuss and bother wouldn't it? Trouble is, if yr a woman,
>and invalid, an old age pensioner or just not feeling too crash hot
>that particular day, the option's not open to you, is it?!
]Why would you be punching anyone of you have a gun aimed at them?
Guess thatz all you would be doin', if u didn't have one, wouldncha?
>>Yeh, like cowardly shooting someone in the back, or someone who is
unarmed?
>>Traditional concepts of honour would not allow one to do such a thing, but
>>you're the one overturning that here. Just so you can be sure.
>
>...and traditional concepts of morality would not allow a thug
>to enter someone's house un-invited to steal/terrorise as he saw fit,
>nor would it cast opprobium on someone for stopping the thug dead in
>his tracks.
]Sure, if you're being attacked. But you want to shoot them regardless.
]It's both cowardly and immature (I used to think the same as a teenager).
Who carez?
> I can even quote the Bible verse on that:
>"If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall
>no blood be shed for him" [Exodus 22:2]
]There's a great place to quote from; one of the biggest pieces of fiction
]messed up with ancient laws (2000+ years) from the middle east!
Nevertheless, a more inspiring source than a bunch of corrupt, scumbag
pollies!
And the same piece of fiction that's formed the basis for all our
laws,morals
and ethics for the last several hundred years.
Perhaps they're fiction too?
Funny about that, though....they seem to be digging up stuff around
that neck of the woods(Middle East) all the time that makes that fiction
look
suspiciously like FACT!(...or is that 'faction'?!)
>>all those
>>>sort of rights that spring from the traditional Xian European heritage
>>>and which are described so well in the 1688 Bill of Rights, US
>Constitution
>>>and
>>>the Magna Carta.
>
>
>>So how do I fall into being PC? I fit in to abiding by the law, and
having
>>some code of honour and responsibility with a firearm.
>
>'Abiding by the law' means nothing if the law isn't worth
>abiding by. Gun Grab Laws are a case in point.
]Well that makes you a criminal, doesn't it? Personally I think you should
]be convicted if you are merely seeking revenge on a burglar for simply
break
]and entering your property, and thereby opening fire on them when they are
]not a threat to you.
]As you know, I think the perp should be shot if he tries to enact violence
]upon you.
Whatever.....
>*=======================================*
>"There`s no way to rule innocent men. The only
>power any government has is the power to crack
>down on criminals. Well, when they're aren't
>enough criminals, one makes them. One declares
>so many things to be a crime, that it becomes
>impossible to live without breaking laws."
>[Ayn Rand: 'Atlas Shrugged`]
>*======================================*
]I didn't think you liked educated people?
There are plenty of educated people who aren't politically correct,
femi-nazi, latte-drinking,chardonnay-swilling, intellectual elite pinhead
pinkos!
Ayn Rand happens/happened to be one of them!
>>>>This is a game of responsibility.
>>>Sorry: on my own property, _I_ am responsible for what goes on.
>>>The guvmint stops at MY front gate. End of story.
>
>>No, that is how we would like it to be. That is not how it is, and the
law
>>doesn't usually see it that way either.
>
>The 'law' that has been written by a bunch of politically correct arseholes
>with no more moral authority than the common house-brick.
]If the law allowed it, would you simply shoot at anyone illegally
]tresspassing on your property without warning, or without seeing if they
]will surrender or be allowed to flee?
Nope...but i'd sure as hell shoot at someone floating around
me bedroom at 3a.m., who wouldn't agree to wait for the cops....its
called SELF-DEFENCE!
]I would like the option (for removing the fear of legal rammifications),
but
]I would definitely not just shoot at people because I was allowed to.
Depends wot type of ‘people' we're talkin` about don't it?
(Not Auntie Nell, thatz for sure!)
>>> Thatz another one
>>>of those traditional rights that goes WAYyyyyyyy back to Magna Carta
>>>and beyond....itz called 'controlling Big Guvmint'
>
>>So move to Texas.
>
>I'v got a better idea....put all the politically correct thugs on a
>slow boat to China! Why should i leave my own country?
]America's liberties are abused by their screwed up society. On the one
]hand, guns do not kill people. On the other hand, ANYONE can get a gun, so
]you have plenty of halfwits running around with guns. I do not want a
]similar scenario here, but then they have restricted us too far in
]Australia.
U don't know wot yr talkin' about! (Why ain't i surprized?)
The ‘halfwits' are really thin on the ground in those areas of the US
where CC laws or liberal gun laws are in place. Also, where
there is a small concentration of multi-cultural bullshit.
Herez some stats for u to kick around:
********************************
(In the US, there are three kinds of states with respect to "concealed"
carry. One type, if state has discretionry laws. These mean that a police
chief or other official determines whether you deserve to have concealed
carry license. Usually you have to be rich, politically connected, or
celebrity to get a license in these states. The average person is out of
luck. The second type of state are those that allow NO concealled carry
except for police and licensed private investigators. The third type are
states that have non-discretionary laws. In these states, if you pass your
criminal background check, take your mandated training, and pay your license
fee, the government MUST issue you a concealed carry license.)
Lott determined the following differences between these three types of
states. I've extracted some data from
"Table 3.2 Crime Rates in states and the District of Columbia that do and do
not allow the carrying of concealed handguns" (rates are per 100,000, please
excuse any alignment problems)
Type of crime Non-discret. discretionary no-concealed carry
Violent crime 378.8 653.1 715.9
(aggregate)
Murder 5.1 7.3 11.6
Rape 35 43.3 43.9
Aggravated
assault 229.9 380.9 451.7
Robbery 108.8 220.9 224.1
(below are property crimes)
Auto theft 334.2 564.6 504
Burglary 840.3 1035.8 1111.3
Larceny 2611.8 3065.9 3110.1
Source: "More Guns, Less Crime", University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL
1998, ISBN 0-226-49363-6, page 46.
Do you see a pattern here?
(*apologies to: George of the Jungle*)
********************************
Herez a few more for ya:
(Let's look at the one area were there is real gun control, you know,
no legal guns at all... Washington DC.)
According to the FBI stats for 1997:
Gun Free - DC Surrounding Area (VA-MD - Not Gun Free)
Population 529,000 3,984,915
Murders 301 162
Murder Rate 56.9 4.0
Just one more piece of evidence that gun control does not equal crime
control... unless your trying to increase the crime rate.
Washington D.C. had the highest murder rate per 100,000 population for
cities over 100,000 population for the years 1988 to 1992 inclusive.
From: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dtdata.htm#State
Specifically: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/data/lgcithom.wk1
Year Murders Population Rate per 100,000
1988 369 620,000 59.516
1989 434 604,000 71.854
1990 472 606,900 77.772
1991 482 598,000 80.602
1992 443 589,000 75.212
Whoa... look how crime has risen where there is no guns by law. Honest
citizen disarmed, criminals have free reign.
(*apologies to ‘/Duane/ Kelly'*)
Chew on that little lot for a while, Glock Boy!
*****************************
<snippo!>
>>Yes I know, and Governments have killed over 130,000,000 people this
>century
>>etc. etc. By the way, China had already been disarmed before the
>>Communists.
>
>....making it that much easier for them...just like 'gun registration' does
>for the prospective tyrant!
]Well no, the peasants were given arms when they joined the nationalist or
]communist armies.
....and anyone who didn't(or didn't agree with Marxist Maggots!, or anyone
they
‘suspected' of not agreeing with them)
Was lined up against a wall and...........(fill in the blanx, Glock Boy!)
<snippo!>
>>You can, though not from a hardware store :)
>....not without a great deal of difficulty and bureaucratic crap!
]It's not THAT hard. And it should be hard anyway. Do you think they
should
]just give the things out like candy?
Nope...rckn ya oughta pay for ‘em, anyway! As per costs of
production/whatever.
Obviously, a cmpny has to make a profit!
<snippo!>
<snippo on newspaperz!>
>>That is not true. Police do not wish to waste time and resource on a case
>>they think is believable.
>THey can be _made_ to waste time by their superiors....also, cops
>ain't wot they used to be 15-20yrs ago!
]What, corrupt? ;)
nahhh..they've bin corrupt in Oz since the Rum Rebellion.
I'm talkin' about femi-nazis and politically correct punks being
issued with uniforms, badges, heavy calibre handguns and a licence to kill!
<snippo!>
Chris G
jimbo wrote in message <38f8...@news.alphalink.com.au>...
>Perhaps we should examine what was taught in schools 50yrs ago as compared
>to the
>type of trash taught today? Perhaps we should compare church attendances?
>Whatever the reason.....do you now deny that the society of 2000A.D is
>an equally safe place to the society of 1950!
Have I ever denied that you moron? I deny the term SKYROCKET because it's
bullshit.
>[Please DO! I will take great pleasure in exposing you as even more of a
>schmuck than you have already demonstrated yourself to be!]
>
>> Is this a dream or
>>is this reality? HELLO! Earth to Chris G....anyone home?
>
>]It's as real as your "skyrocketing" ABS figures which, funnily enough, the
>]ABS don't agree with.
>
>Look again. If you can't understand figure comparisons....perhaps
>a graph might help?
>(http://www.ssaa.org.au/Doc24.htm.)
What's wrong, not happy with the ABS figures?
That graph's interestingly drawn to take in suckers like you... notice it
focuses on a small section, ie only 75000?
Second thing... notice the curve before the gun buy back scheme? It's
exactly the same. Stupid!
>The point is: IF THEY BREAK INTO a HOUSE WHEN THE
>OCCUPANTS are MOST LIKELY HOME, THEY CLEARLY DON'T GIVE A
>TOSS ABOUT WHETHER THEY ARE HOME OR NOT?
This has alreay been covered. When they are alseep is better than when they
are away from home, simply because of outside witnesses.
>Sorry....what serious academic surveys were u quoting from again?
Just the ABS. You know, something Australian.
>Allowing for cultural differences, these trends could
>be argued as also being the case in Oz. That is:
>more widespread gun ownership==less burglaries==
>less confrontation with burglars.The significant increase
>in burglary rates post-Gun Grab is just too much of
>a coincidence to be passed over!
DUH! Look at your graph. The rate of increase has not budged, has it?
>> When they appear,
>>no doubt u'll be changing yr shit-eating tune......!
>
>]Oh I'm sure, Jimbo. I'm sure they'll "skyrocket".
>
>Believe it, SCHMUCK! They'll go through the roof!
>In the meantime, chew on this.....
>********************************
>Article from the Melbourne Herald Sun_news pictorial,
>thurs, april 29,1999; pg 10
>Title: Syringe robbery fear. Needle threats soar by 100%
>by:peter mickelburough (chief police reporter)
>Recorded crimes with a weapon in Victoria:
>Year: 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 (half year)
>Firearm
> 447 372 473 485 520 256
Slight decrease in last year (assuming final figure x 2).
>knife
> 1289 868 748 1410 1853 943
No change...
>bar/bat
> 391 256 233 363 457 254
Slight rise...
>Bottle/glass
> 241 179 136 246 306 163
Slight rise...
>Syringe
> 32 19 31 83 141 187
Huge rise!
>(dunno wot all the fuss about ‘syringes' is! )
It's exceptionally low to use a syringe I guess.
>(*Note_i:These are official police figure....the same type
>of figures utilised by ABS;
>*Note_ii:The 1999 figures are only for the ½-yr, but already
>show an ominous trend;
Yeh, that they're nearly all exactly the same (except for syringes).
>*Note_iii: Since Vctr & NSW have the largest ppltns, _by_far_
>of all the mainland states and, hence, the largest nmbr of crims
>we would expect increasing violent crime rates, if any, to
>be most dramatically mirrored there;
>*Note_iv:These figures are for violent crime, generally.
>There is no delineation re: unlawful entries. However,
>it is probably fair to say[and taking into account the
>significant increase in 1998 unlawful entries] that, if
>violent crimes generally rise, then so do burglaries.
It's not probably fair to say anything of the sort.
>>U'v also got the wrong link.........u should have gone here:
>>http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/c311215.NSF/Australia+Now+-+A+Statistical
+
>P
>>rofile/2C2A842ACC44F31DCA2567220072E990.
>
>]The above link works for me. What's wrong, you don't like the figures I
>]posted above? It means that breakins occur to only 5% of households, up
>]from 4.4% in 1993. Hardly skyrocketing.
>
>Perhaps we're talking about two different sets of figures from the ABS
>Is the ABS being shifty here? Wotz going on?
>NO: _YOUR'RE_ the one whoz GOT it WRONG, pal....
>The figure show almost an _8.5%_ increase from 1996-1998 in
>unlawful entries. Here they are again.......
I've got it wrong? I pasted from the ABS and gave you the page. Note the
change in mine is from 1993-1998. The rise is 0.6% of total households, or
a 7.3% rise in the number of households robbed in 1993.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND?
>]In 1998, of all unlawful entries, 79% were carried out with the intent to
>]steal property. The remaining 21% were carried out with the intent to
harm
>]the occupants or property.
>]So that means, to our argument, Jimbo, that 79% of the time, the thief is
>]there to steal. The other 21% are the ones intent on smashing either you
>or
>]your property.
>
>Nope it doesn't....because we don't know how much ‘overlap'[if any] there
>is in the ‘armed robbery' stats for a start. Also, we don't know what
>type of ‘properties' the 21% is referring to _and_ what % of the 79%
>overlaps
>with the 21%[if any]. We also do not know what % of the 79% were
>aware of(or even cared) if the owner was home or not. Those are
>called HIDDEN VARIABLES, if you ever bother to study statistics!
For fuck's sake, Jimbo, the article specifically shows a split between
PERSONAL and PROPERTY crimes. So: 79% are there to steal, 21% want to bash
your arse.
>
>> Or, how the ABS defines
>>'a burglary'.
>
>]Yeh, it makes the distinction at the top...
>
>]"Nationally, offences against property (unlawful entry with intent, motor
>]vehicle theft and other theft)" - PROPERTY
>
>]"This age group had the highest victimisation rates for manslaughter,
>sexual
>]assault, kidnapping/abduction, armed robbery and unarmed robbery" -
>PERSONAL
>
>overlap, hidden variables,
...bullshitting,
>
>]The only think that skyrocketed was armed robbery, which is not committed
>]against the householder according to these figures. If it did, then the
>]armed and unarmed robbery figures would be WAY in excess of the total
>number
>]of unlawful entries.
>
>And ‘armed robbery' is defined as......?
PERSONAL crime, not PROPERTY.
>
>]I regard him as some punk on drugs who wants to flog all my nice gear to
>buy
>]more drugs.
>
>....and a dangerous punk at that.
Not most of the time, especially if you have a gun.
>
>]Bullshit, if you really feared for your life you'd move to another cheap
>]area that lacked the violence your area does. I just moved from a dodgey
>]neighbourhood. The Feds had the place under surveillance for weeks
because
>]of an organised drug job going on through one of the tenants. Not to
>]mention all the domestics and evictions the police had to stop around for.
>]Solution? Move to another cheap neighbourhood. You'll find there are
some
>]shit ones, and some relatively good ones.
>
>U don't know the Mlbrn area too well do you? Most, if not all,
>of the ‘cheapo' areas have high crime rates. Many of them were
>previously settled by, or settled later by, Housing Commission tenants
>who are, basically, mostly low-lifes and boob heads.(why? Because
>no decent Real Estate Agent would rent to them!) That's why anyone who
>knows Mlbrn well lives either some way out(in semi-rural areas) or
>in the Eastern suburbs....sometimes called ‘the stockbroker belt'
>Naturally, the prices for renting and buying here reflect this.
>Sorry: I live where I live because of economic and financial constraints.
>PERIOD!
I've never heard anyone in Melbourne say they fear for their life, and most
live in lower cost rented residences. Though one's loaded ;)
>
>>>Err, this was 1992-1995. Here's a fact that may astound you: crime
>>existed
>>>before they took away assault rifles. Another fact: you do not need a
>>semi
>>>auto rifle to kill someone.
>>
>>Here's a fact that may astound YOU: crime has _risen_ (I'd say
>>substantially)
>
>]Armed robbery. Don't you think that contradicts the gun grab? More
>robbers
>]are arming themselves, but less of the population have guns. Hmmmmmm.
>
>Not at all. Why? Because crims always find guns easy to get.
>And where civilian guns are scarce, a burgeoning black market soon
>appears. Availble to _crims_ of course(junkies, bikies,thugs,armed robbers,
>burglars, whoever)
>_NOT_ to Joe Q Public! Thatz why Prfssr John Lott wrote a book called
>"More Guns Equals Less Crime" Perhaps you should read it?!
LOL! I agree with this, so why are you telling me? Trying to evade the
above? If the population have more guns, why are more crims arming
themsevles? Threat has diminished. Availability of guns doesn't make crims
go and get more guns, it just makes them easier to get ig they want one.
>
>>since they TOOK AWAY ASSAULT RIFLES(there you go with yr straw men
>>again....a .22 semi-auto isn't an ASSAULT RIFLE you FUCKWIT!)
>
>]You specified .22 afterwards you bloody idiot.
>
>Yr the one brought up the term ‘assault rifles' I never initially mentioned
>it.
>Or do you class all semi-auto rifles as ‘assault rifles' If so, yr in good
>company with yr anti-gun loon mates!
How am I anti-gun? I'm anti-idiot gun owners.
>
>>No: u _don't_ need an ASSAULT rifle to kill someone. A .22 semi-auto will
>>do just as well....or a semi-auto shtgn.....or even a pump-action
>>shotgun....or
>>even a centrefire/civilian semi-auto...ALL NOW PROSCRIBED by the
>>Gun Grabbers!
>
>]You don't understand do you? If you cared so much about your need to kill
>]perps to save your life, you'd buy a bloody pistol. But this doesn't seem
>]to make any difference to you does it? So I have to assume you're ranting
>]on about the other guns just because they're no longer available, not
>]because you're really interested in effectively wiping out thieves.
>
>I'm ranting on about guns because me, and people I know, are now in DANGER
>of being molested by rampaging thugs, thnx to the Gun Grab.
Did you get your gun taken from you?
>Pistols are difficult to get in Victr(legally, that is!) and involve a
>substantial
>waiting period,
Aren't the laws uniform now? That was the point of the centralised gun
laws. If you fear for your life, you can wait for the licence.
> expensive storage requirements and mind-numbing bureaucratic
>bullshit. Also, a pistol licence can be revoked more or less on a whim by
>_ANY_ police officer,firearm bureaucrat or local GP and takes months, if
not
>years(two or three, by the time it gets to a court) to have re-instated!
So don't go doing silly things with it.
>Also: you cannot put down on your application form as
>‘Reason for owning pistol'....self-protection!
No shit, you put sports/hobby and join a gun club (which you should do
anyway).
>
><snippo!>
>
>>U dunno wot the HELL yr saying and haven't since u decided to BUTT IN
>>to this post! Next time a drugged-out psycho turns up in yr bed-room at
>>3a.m, I'll read with interest how y'all sat down and had a nice cup of tea
>>and a place of iced vo-vos. U INSUFFERABLE FUCKWIT U!
>
>]Oh, now you've gone off the deep end, haven't you? I said I'd shoot down
>]any real threat to my livelihood. You WANT to kill anything that moves
>that
>]shouldn't be on your property, "just incase".
>
>NOT ‘anything that moves' Just thugs that move around my
>living-room/bed-room
>uninvited and in a threatening manner at 3 o bloody clock in the morning!
No, not in a threatening manner you liar. Your justification is that IF
they are IN YOUR HOUSE, then they are AUTOMATICALLY A THREAT (because they
don't care if you're there or not, and as you say, are all psychos). Are
you now backtracking and agreeing with me?
>>Where are the home owners at night? Aren't they at home?
>
>]Asleep, Einstein.
>
>Sure they are, Mr Hawking! They're all in comas...and unable to
>be woken by: creaking floorboards, moving furniture, breaking windows,
>sneezing, coughing,talking, whatever.....are we talking about burglars
>or friggin' GHOSTS?!
I didn't realise you were so aware of your surroundings when you were
asleep. Maybe you're a cyborg and you passively scan your house for
movement 24/7.
>
>>If they didn't want to confront the owners, the ideal time would be
>>_during the day_. Ok: they might be seen(but not if they're careful)
>>'Neighbourhood Watch' ain't worth a crock!
>
>]The risk of being seen and having their vehicle seen in the day time is
too
>]high, compared to risking waking up the owners at night.
>
>..not if most people in the neighbourhood are also at work, the vehicle is
>parked in a secluded spot/some distance away, they are wearing over-alls
and
>look like regular workmen, the people in the neighbourhood couldn't
>give a toss what happens to their neighbours &c &c....u know!
>All the things that most burglars ‘check out' before they go a burgurgling!
This is true in some cases, I guess it depends where you live (ie. in one of
my old neighbourhood you had retirees watering their lawns all the time, too
much activity there for robbing in the day... we had a stretch of several
robberies in that street where the burglars lifted tiles of the roof and
came in through the roof at night).
>
>>>A home invasion is aimed at harrassing and harming the occupants. I've
>>said
>>>this like 4 times, which part do you not get?
>>
>>No....itz the part YOU don't get.....and I'v said it THREE TIMES now....
>>burglar confronts home-owner==aggravated burglary ~home invasion!
>>Same bloke, differrent haircut!
>
>]Alright, well you call it whatever you want if it makes you happy, I'm
>going
>]by the police defintion (or what they report it as to the papers in press
>]releases).
>
>Perhaps you'd care to explain the fine line of distinction between
>‘aggravated burglary' and ‘home invasion'?!
Home invasion never intends to use stealth. Aggravated burglary turns
agrravated when stealth fails (and are they types we are talking about).
>
>]That's a really interesting opinion. I studied Journalism, and
>]unfortunately for you, all local, metropolitan, regional and national
>papers
>]are considered mainstream
>
>by who? Local papers rely on the local community to keep going.
By their owners, by journalists. BTW, their news feeds come from national
papers and international news networks, otherwise, how do you think they
ever get stories outside of their town? It's not like they can employ
national corespondents.
>
>]UNLESS they specify a certain bias, or write to a
>]niche readership. Local papers are also considered (by Journalists
anyway)
>]to be tabloids.
>
>Those wouldn't be the same journos who make up the
>anti-gun loon brigade, would it?
Most journalists know shit-all about guns and have no interest in them.
>
>]Maybe you should go to your paper and tell them they're not mainstream
>]though, that would add some humour to their morning.
>
>They're not ‘mainstream' in the sense the big metro dailies are...and
>_u_ know it. U'v just gotta look at some of the jerk-offs writing
>‘opinion pieces' in the metro broadsheets! Try the Courier-Mail!
>Its _chockas_ with femi-nazi, politically correct THUGs!
I hate that chick... she is someone I'd class as PC. I forget her name.
You're a bit liberal with the PC label though. Anyone who doesn't agree
with you, you coin PC.
>
>>>> and the ABS figures.
>
>>>Well now I know you are simply lying, as above, the ABS shows a very
>slight
>>>increase in break ins.
>>
>>Well now, I know you simply don't know what the hell yr talking about,
>>because the ABS figures show almost a 8½% increase in break-ins.
>>That ain't _slight_. 0.8 is slight....BUT NOT 8+%
>
>]Sorry, you're right... I am wrong, 4.4 to 5% = 0.6% increase... sorry
about
>]that.
>
>Sorry..u got ya head up ya rectum.
>The increase is 9.4% from two year previous, and 8.5% for total burglaries
LOL! They're DIFFERENT sets of figures. They may have increased by 8.5%,
but the increase of break ins in my figures were from 1993-1998 and the
total increase was 0.6% of TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS... not of those robbed in the
previous year. Do you get why they are different figures now?
>
>>>>They all show _skyrocketing_ violent crime right here in good
>>>>ol' Oz! What planet are u living on?!
>
>>>The only think skyrocketing is your imagination. Actually visiting the
>ABS
>>>website might help, rather than just pretending.
>>
>>Take yr own advice And do some serious reading on constructing arguments
>>and backing them up while yr at it!
>
>]But I did, or are you going to tell me my figures aren't actually on the
>ABS
>]website?
>
>Are u going to tell me mine aren't?
I've acknowledged yours you twit! I even discussed them. You just claimed
mine/ABS's were wrong!
I acknowledged armed robbery (a PERSONAL crime according to the ABS) went up
by a shitload. I acknowledged that all break ins between 1996-98 went up by
~8%.
What's your problem with this? And why do you not respond to my figures?
>
>>>>Why shouldn't they?...unless itz _obviously_ a real one...like an under
>>>>and over 12G?
>
>>>I'm not even going to bother answering that, it is the dumbest thing I've
>>>read for quite some time.
>>
>>.......no dumber than the rubbish u'v been posting up!
>
>]No it is seriously dumb to assume that the average robber is going to
>chance
>]his life on your gun not being loaded. That's even too dumb for a B-grade
>]action flick.
>
>It'd be seriously dumb if we lived in the land of B-grade flicks.
>Since we don't, it has to qualify as a realistic possiblity, at least!
Oh "good one Jimbo". You're re-using my comments, eh? We know you're the
one with the big imagination and large dose of low grade action flick script
writing which adversely affects the way you think a break in plays out.
>>
>>Ho hum! They're scumbags....end of story. They enter at their own
>>risk, AFAIMC!
>
>]Which doesn't make the any less real as people. If it were you, robbing
>]someone, would you throw yourself at a gun and hope the thing wasn't
>loaded?
>
>Nope...but then I don't go ‘round robbing people's houses!
Nope was all I needed, thanks.
>
>]Drop the argument, it only makes sense if the thief is fucked on drugs,
>]which most wouldn't be until they got home (and sold your shit).
>
>It makes sense in Oz because Oz ain't Texas!...where u can be almost
>100% certain that if someone flashes a gun at you it is:[i]real;
>[ii]loaded and [iii]going to be used on you if you do not follow
>instructions _
>to_ _the_ _letter_ Don't forget(at least in Victr) the cops classify
>realistic-looking water pistols as guns!
>[people have even gone to court for selling them at local flea markets! I
>SHIT YOU NOT!]
No, it doesn't even make sense in Oz. They still would not, if unaffected
by drugs, jump at you if you have a gun.
>
>]While there's some good points attributed to gun ownership, there are also
>]some bad ones, ie. like the type of people that are allowed to own one,
and
>]the lack of knowledge these morons have of owning, maintaining, and
>securing
>]a firearm. Those dicks are also the reason for those terrible accidents,
>]and they end up giving the responsible gun owners a bad name.
>
>The good points outweigh the bad ones by a country mile.
So you'd let anyone over 18 have a gun of any type with few storage
requirements and no enforced training? That's a good way to fuck the
country up. Hey, then you won't have to move to the US, you can bring it
right on over to Australia.
>>...and with the attendant risk of alerting the owners(which the thugs
>>no longer give a toss about, of course!)
>
>]Maybe not, but AGAIN:
>
>]a) why escalate your crime from a break and enter to an assault or murder?
>
>Because you are a drugged-out psycho anyway!
Rarely.
Answer the question.
>
>]b) why risk your livelihood when you can run off and try robbing another
>]house in another neighbourhood?
>
>Because, being a drugged out psycho,
...rarely...
>you are not a rational thinker
>anyway and, being a crim and a thug, you don't give two and a half
>tosses about someone else's pain or discomfort AS LONG as YOU GET
>WHAT YOU WANT!
But you didn't answer the question, did you.
>
>]Yes but it usually happens to people who have safes etc. or somethingn
>]valuable that the robbers need the home owner to be present, to attain.
>
>Lots of people have safes. Or hidden cash. Or hidden jewelery.
I don't. And most robbers don't know of the safe. Usually the home invader
knows of the person they are robbing and their business.
>
>]Yes, otherwise they're not really home invading (or doing a good job of
>it).
>
>Burgling a house where you know the owners are likely to be home,
>knowing that you may end up confronting them and not giving a toss is
>tantamount to home invasion, AFAIMC. We may also add:
>home invaders can easily ‘diminish' into burglars if:[a]
>they know no-one is likely to be home anyway and [b]
>they can easily get what they want with a minimum of effort.
Yes, but as said before, they usually need/want the occupant to be home.
>
>>A 'burglar' may _well_ have one also...maybe less likely than
>>the armed bandit but certainly a definite possibility...._too_
>>definite to pussy-foot around with the friggin' jerk!
>
>]Who's pussy footing?
>
>YOU are...if you treat a psychotic
Assumption.
> schmuck wandering around
>yr living-room/bed-room at 3a.m. as just someone who
>has accidentally strayed into the wrong house..."ooopss!
>Sorry, sir....I was looking for Mrs Bloggs' house!"
Why, pray tell, would I have a gun aimed at them then?
>
>]Funny, the case I cited before (with gun owner shooting kid who breaks
>]through glass door) was committed in a low light setting with a high
>powered
>]bolt action rifle.
>
>Really? Perhaps the owner wasn't complying with the storage
>requirements then? (Naughty, naughty....!)
No, he did comply, which is why his case was so strong.
>Was the owner: an invalid, old age pensioner,
>female? Experienced gun owner? Was the incident pre- or post-
>Gun Grab?
>So many questions, so few answers......!
He was a professional marksmen apparently, which actually went against him
(he should have shot to maim).
>]All of these people are better off with a pistol, aren't they?! The
pistol
>]is SA, but also much lighter.
>
>Guess they can just hop, skip and jump down to the local hardware store
>and buy one, no problemos!?
>DAMN! Why didn't I think of that?
>Ooppps......is this Arizona, Texas, Wyoming?
>SHIT! It's Oz! No WONDER I haven't got me 475 Wildey Auto-Mag ready
>and waiting! DRAT!
Stop crying, there's no reason you cannot go and buy a pistol unless there's
something wrong with you.
>
>]HAHA You're a militia wannabee aren't ya! "Marxist maggots." Please!
>
>The Gun Grabbers have clear connections with the UN.
As do most civilised countries.
> The UN has
>a strong Marxist bias.
Militia have strong KKK bias.
> Marxists are murderers.
KKK are murders.
> Murderers are maggots!
>Hence, Marxists are maggots!
>Get it?!
BTW, what true Marxist murdered? They were Stalinists. Stalin was into
violence, but that wasn't part of Marx's ideads, was it?
>
>>Nope! The penalties for possessing (unlicensed) SAs were eff' all! They've
>>been increased significantly! They are now proscribed weapons!
>
>]No... for storage.
>
>Sorry.....are centre-fire semi-autos(or even rim-fire semi autos) now legal
>to own? Must have missed that one!
*sigh* You missed the point... I wasn't disagreeing with you about that.
Anyway...
>>All penalties associated with firearms have now been increased.
>>We may also mention the fact that even the cops are _different_
>>today...there are many more 19-yr old politically correct punks and
>>20-yr old femi-Nazis then there previously were! Most, if not all,
>>of the old style cops(who exercised a certain amount of give-and-take)
>>are gone, replaced by these FREAKS!
>
>]The average *entry level* age of a police officer is 27 in QLD. Remember
>]the old style cops are the ones in charge still, as the new cops are still
>]filling in the lower ranks. Not that you'd care, as they're simply the
>]executive arm of the "marxist maggots" anyway.
>
>Not in Victoria. And I _was_ talking about Victoria(and, NSW, if you like!)
As if you'd know.
>And if a guvmint is run by marxists,then they are maggots...why?
>Because marxists are maggots! U'v got plenty up in Qlnsnd.
>But, then, you bananna benders were always a bit sloooowwww on
>the uptake. Thatz why u'v always needed us Vics to run the
>friggin' joint for yez! Guess the likes of Peter Beatme is
>just a good ol' boy, huh?Have a look at some of yr other ‘good ol' boys'
right here.....
>http://lockstockandbarrel.org/Documents/HOUSE-GARDEN.htm.
You okay?
>
>]Guess what profession I'm going into after working overseas? ;)
>
>Sorry...u musta mistaken me for someone who gives a RAT's ARSE!
Well if I was cow branding you would.
>]Then you musn't be to keen on saving your skin. I mean, if you want to
>]shoot someone in your home, a pistol is a good way to do so. Seeing the
>]bolt action rifle is awkward for such a situation, why not buy a pistol?
>Or
>]are you just whinging for no reason, and not really interested on getting
a
>]gun for home protection?
>
>I'v explained all that above. The requirements for owning pistols in
>Victoria are onerous and time-consuming. I also do not feel
>like complying with their bureaucratic bullshit and going to
>all that trouble to have the friggin' thing taken off me on some
>copper's WHIM!
God you're a dickhead.
"Oh no, it takes too long, booo hoo hoo".
"Oh no, I have to fill out forms, booo hoo hoo."
How many cops live at your home? None? Well that's how high the chance is
for your gun being taken away. or do you think a cop will drop by one day
and say, Hmmm, I might relieve this guy of his gun.
>]Yeah, that massive gun owner population will just hammer the Government.
>We
>]have virtually no voice, and whenever we do get a voice, they give us a
>]redneck spokesperson who all the latte drinkers think are "bad type right
>]wingers". So we're fucked.
>
>U had 11 One Nation members elected in Queensland in 1998 partly on the
>strength of the ‘pro-gun' vote.
Oh yeah, we can attribute all 11% to gun owners. I certainly did not vote
for one nation, as even if they did favour semi-auto rifles, they a) only
did it for cheap votes, and b) couldn't run their own party, let alone the
State.
> The proof of that is in the private members'
>Bill that was tabled in the Queensland Parliament shortly thereafter(and
>defeated
>because the Libs sided with Labor against it)
>U also have the savaging Howard received at the Federal election(again
>due largely to One Nation prefernces going to Labor[whose primary vote
>hardly moved])
>Finally, you have the DRUBBING jeff.com received in Victoria...where there
>are BIG HEAPS of dis-affected gun owners and where three(in fact, almost
>FIVE)
>independents were elected on the strength of the pro-gun vote!
>As for ‘red-neck' spokesmen: maybe u need a few. The old fossils that
>constituted the old guard at SSAA haven't achieved a hell of a lot!
>Most people want guns now for SELF-PROTECTION! Not to shoot ducks or
>clay pigeons! They want SELF-PROTECTION against rampaging THUGs!
You know what the polls were at the time, before the gun grab? Like 70-80%
in favour of the gun grab laws. People don't like guns if the know nothing
about them.
>
>>>> and is ideal
>>>>for old-age pensioners, invalids or single mums.....the people who
>>>>MOST need them NOW!
>>
>>>A pistol is even more ideal.
>>
>>and much harder to get a licence for......
>
>]Have you tried?
>
>I don't have to...I know what the requirements are in Victoria.
>It's all in writing.....those requirements aren't going to magically
>disappear when you make an application...!
What requirements do you not satisfy?
>
>>and much harder to
>>meet the storage requirements.....
>
>]They're sensible requirements if you have kids around the home.
>
>They're BULLSHIT requirements...like all gun laws....BULL_SHIT_!
And that's why people dislike gun owners, because of morons like you.
>>and much easier to lose
>>for some slight violation of the many restrictions......&c!
>
>]And how would one be caught for one of those?
>
>Anything from looking at the missus funny one morning over the
>Corn Flakes to one of the neighbours' thinking yr acting a bit funny....!
So, you mean, there's no real way you'd be caught.
>]Oh, so you're using my comebacks on me?
>
>U reap wot u sow!
Right, or you just lack wit or creativity.
>
>]But that doesn't work jimbo, because you're the only one citing
>sensationalist
>]dribble, "every robbers a drug fucked psycho, itching to bleed you dry"
etc
>etc.
>
>No sensationalist dribble[sic] around here, BUCKO...not
>from my side of the fence, anyway....just facts, FACTS and _FACTS_!
And delusion...
>
>]Why am I buying a Glock 22 then, you moron?
>
>I don't know and I don't care, _champ_! But I _do_ know one thing....
>U didn't put ‘home protection' on yr application form....
Of course not, what dickhead would do that?
>Because, if you did, you sure as hell _wouldn't_ be buying one!
Ah okay, so you saw guns in the Matrix and went, "Cool!". And that's about
all you know...
What exactly is wrong with a Glock 22 (.40 S&W)?
>When that happens, _then_ I will
>go out and get _another_ one!
You musn't really want one then.
>
>]You just seem to have nothing better to do that make yourself look like a
>]twat with little southern drawl accents, anti-government lunacies, and
>]anti-responsibility statements.
>
>I do it to annoy all the politically correct pricks out there on USENET!
>I seem to be succeding reasonably well!
You mean you want to be a little American farm boy?
>
>]Ooooooooooooh, this gets better every time... so first "YOU HAVE
>]experience," then we find out it's NOT first hand experience (you know
>]someone it happened to), and then you try and say, "IT'S AS GOOD AS first
>]hand experience".
>
>Someone getting stabbed to death a few yards from you is just
>another one of those ‘everyday ho-hum! type events' is it?
A few yards now, so you saw it happen? What did you do?
> I'v witnessed violent crime(including armed robberies!)
>At _close_ range. I was even a police witness in one.
What about airplane hyjackings? Did you kill all the terrorists with your
bare hands?
>>
>>.....and a much more costly one. I'll take a .22 semi-auto any day thnx!
>
>]You didn't take any gun at all! If you need a semi-auto rifle to defend
>]yourself, and no other gun will do, there's something very wrong with you.
>
>Sorry...I think I _do_ need a .22 semi-auto to defend meself from
>psycho-thugs!
If they're drugged out, you'd be lucky to stop one with a .22! Oh and it
has to be a rifle, because why? You're a shit aim with a pistol? I just
don't get it... in fact, there's nothing to get except irrational bullshit.
> Since I haven't got a black belt in martial arts,
>I'd say it would be ideal!
That helps, what style?
>
>]What did the people -you know- do about the thugs? Or does everyone you
>]know in your neighbourhood only defend themselves with a .22 semiauto
>rifle?
>
>_they_didn't_have_guns_to_do_it_with_because_of_the_1996_Gun_Grab_!
>Sooo....u know wot they did? They haddta put up with being bashed and
>robbed!
>And then make a statement to the cops(when they finally arrived about an
>hour later!)
I thought you were only a few yards away. Did you just stand there and
watch?
>>I see. What are we supposed to do with them? Discuss the weather?
>
>]Err no, keep them out?
>
>Sure......if u can afford the $5000+ for the features. If u can't...TOUGH.
>Guess yr
>gunna hafta try and discuss sweet nothings with a psycho-thug!
Then you have a gun aimed at them.
>
>]I don't know, YOU tell me. You're the one who installed security screens.
>
>They were already installed by the owner of the flat.
Lucky you.
>
>]What??????? I don't know one person who owns a gun, and I know more than
4
>]people. That's pretty fucken unlikely.
>
>Well.....unlikely or not...those are the figures. _PRE_-Gun Grab, of
course.
>Let's just give ya a fer instance. There were an estimated 850000 SKSs
>and SKKs imprtd into Oz from China over the period 1978-1990(Fisher
>Firearms,
>Sth Aust, if I'm not much mistaken!).
>Guess how many were handed in at the Gun Grab?
>Virtually NONE.....(i.e: less than 20000) Wonder where they
>all are? Hmmmmm........? And, of course, we've got all the other types of
>SAs of which
>hardly any were handed in too.....SLRs, Mini-14s, M1Crbns,Stirling
semi-auto
>.22s, &c
>Now, I wonder where all _they_ are? The mind boggles!
Exactly, most of these gun owned more than one gun! Or are you going to
tell me that of 18 million people, 4.5 million owned guns? There would have
been 4.5 million guns out there, but not 4.5 million gun OWNERs.
>Then, we'll end up like the Japs....
>NO private gun ownership and crims armed to the teeth!
>Welcome to the Brave New World of the Gun Grabberz!
Tokyo had something like 11 murders with a firearm last year.
>]Only if he advances does he give up that chance. The other two options do
>]not require firing your weapon.
>
>They do for me.........then again, I'v seen thugs at first hand.
>Unlike U!
Ah, so now, like I said, you want to shoot anything in your house (because
BEING there is a threat).
>
>]Why would you be punching anyone of you have a gun aimed at them?
>
>Guess thatz all you would be doin', if u didn't have one, wouldncha?
So how's it relevant?
>
>]Sure, if you're being attacked. But you want to shoot them regardless.
>]It's both cowardly and immature (I used to think the same as a teenager).
>
>Who carez?
Well that sums up my argument. I didn't assume you were a coward or
immature, but if you're outrightly admitting to it, there's no point
continuing eh?
>
>> I can even quote the Bible verse on that:
>>"If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall
>>no blood be shed for him" [Exodus 22:2]
>
>]There's a great place to quote from; one of the biggest pieces of fiction
>]messed up with ancient laws (2000+ years) from the middle east!
>
>Nevertheless, a more inspiring source than a bunch of corrupt, scumbag
>pollies!
I guess you should actually read the bible - which shows how corrupt pollies
back then were too.
>And the same piece of fiction that's formed the basis for all our
>laws,
Very much a "basis" only, as we've evolved a fair bit since then.
>morals
The morals aren't fiction now are they? The stories which bring them about
are... but it's good if it teaches people basic morals.
>and ethics for the last several hundred years.
>Perhaps they're fiction too?
>Funny about that, though....they seem to be digging up stuff around
>that neck of the woods(Middle East) all the time that makes that fiction
>look
>suspiciously like FACT!(...or is that 'faction'?!)
OMG... maybe you should pick up a book or two. Nearly every "miracle" or
strange happening coincides with Jewish holidays, and seeing they were
written by Jews, they had special meanings which were interpreted as gospel,
but silly westerners. But then a lot of people already realise they are
merely stories.
>
>]Well that makes you a criminal, doesn't it? Personally I think you should
>]be convicted if you are merely seeking revenge on a burglar for simply
>break
>]and entering your property, and thereby opening fire on them when they are
>]not a threat to you.
>
>]As you know, I think the perp should be shot if he tries to enact violence
>]upon you.
>
>Whatever.....
>
>]I didn't think you liked educated people?
>
>There are plenty of educated people who aren't politically correct,
>femi-nazi, latte-drinking,chardonnay-swilling, intellectual elite pinhead
>pinkos!
You don't like chardonnay?
>
>]If the law allowed it, would you simply shoot at anyone illegally
>]tresspassing on your property without warning, or without seeing if they
>]will surrender or be allowed to flee?
>
>Nope...but i'd sure as hell shoot at someone floating around
>me bedroom at 3a.m., who wouldn't agree to wait for the cops....its
>called SELF-DEFENCE!
Someone has to attack you before you are defending yourself. If they are at
distance or fleeing, you're not defending yourself.
HEY JIM, WANT ME TO TYPE IT AGAIN FOR YOU?
>
>]I would like the option (for removing the fear of legal rammifications),
>but
>]I would definitely not just shoot at people because I was allowed to.
>
>Depends wot type of ‘people' we're talkin` about don't it?
>(Not Auntie Nell, thatz for sure!)
So if they take drugs, you want to be able to shoot them dead?
>
>]America's liberties are abused by their screwed up society. On the one
>]hand, guns do not kill people. On the other hand, ANYONE can get a gun,
so
>]you have plenty of halfwits running around with guns. I do not want a
>]similar scenario here, but then they have restricted us too far in
>]Australia.
>
>U don't know wot yr talkin' about! (Why ain't i surprized?)
>The ‘halfwits' are really thin on the ground in those areas of the US
>where CC laws or liberal gun laws are in place. Also, where
>there is a small concentration of multi-cultural bullshit.
A crap multiculturalism by the way, compared to ours at least.
Snip... I know all this shit. You're trying to argue something I already
know??
You want to let anyone get a gun. I do not.
>
>]Well no, the peasants were given arms when they joined the nationalist or
>]communist armies.
>
>....and anyone who didn't(or didn't agree with Marxist Maggots!, or anyone
>they
>‘suspected' of not agreeing with them)
>Was lined up against a wall and...........(fill in the blanx, Glock Boy!)
Err no. If you knew anything about the era, you'd know the Communists used
agrarian politics, and because the people liked their ideas, they joined the
Communist's side. The done thing was to send one or two men into a town to
show the peasantry how the systems would work.
BTW, do you think the Nationalists were nice? They were corrupt right
through, which is why they lost support.
The Maoists (not Marxists you twit), were popular to begin with. It is
later on that they became quite evil.
>
>]What, corrupt? ;)
>
>nahhh..they've bin corrupt in Oz since the Rum Rebellion.
>I'm talkin' about femi-nazis and politically correct punks being
>issued with uniforms, badges, heavy calibre handguns and a licence to kill!
Err, you talk to any young cops lately? Not much of that going round...
Chris
Chris G
Chris G wrote in message <38f8...@news.iprimus.com.au>...
>>Then, we'll end up like the Japs....
>>NO private gun ownership and crims armed to the teeth!
>>Welcome to the Brave New World of the Gun Grabberz!
>
>Tokyo had something like 11 murders with a firearm last year.
>
I cannot support that number with a reference, but look at this (to show
Japan's rates):
http://www.gunfree.org/csgv/intchart.htm
DEATHS DUE TO FIREARMS PER 100,000
Total Firearm Deaths Firearm
Homicides Firearm Suicides Fatal Firearm Accidents
America (13.7%) 35,957 (6.0%)
15,835 (7.0%) 18,503 (0.5%) 1,225
Australia (3.05%) 536
(0.56%) 96 (2.38%) 420 (0.11%) 20
Japan (0.07%) 93
(0.03%) 34 (0.04%) 49 (0.01%) 10
The Japanese are not suffering at all, are they Jimbo? They never even
reach 0.1%. Also, if you've spoken to anyone who's been there, they'll tell
you there's virtually no crime. Young women can even catch the trains in
the middle of the night. Armed to the teeth criminals is horseshit for this
country. For our country, it is different (because our black market's just
tripled).
Anyway... that still won't convince you.
Chris
G
> G wrote:
>
> > So exactly what is wrong with Vialls stuff concerning port Arthur?
>
Well...there we have it...propaganda and content-free statements in one fell
swoop.
Vialls argues the facts. What do you do?
Make noise, refuse to enter into specifics and make irrelevant comments like
the one below about being found guilty. Guilty of what? by whom? Just trying
to throw people off the scent are we?
Jesus, you sad government fucks need training.
> > Name specifics or get out of the argument noise-boy.
>
> Well considering he was found guilty I would assume the onus is on you
> conspiracy theorists to disprove his guilt, so fire away, I'll be more
than
> happy to respond.
>
>
> > Vialls arguments are based on empirical studies.
>
> Do tell! Examples please....
Well, let's start with:
1. the shooter was firing point index shooting from the right hip. Bryant is
left handed.
2. The shooter had a wound to kill ration of 1.6 to 1. Unheard of in any
other random shooting ever, anywhere in the world.
3. The shooter fired 29 out of 30 shots, killing 22 people with 19 head
shots in a space of less than 30 seconds, then waited in the cafe now turned
abbatoir alongside living survivors, knowing he could not be overpowered due
to his markmanship and shooting technique (turning and shooting a couple of
shots so as to not remain facing one direction)
4. Bryant had never fired anything other than an air-gun until a few weeks
prior to the shooting incident.
5. The shhoter stopped two vehicles with 6 shots, using a technique
developed in Israel to stop suicide bombers in cars.
Answer me those points for a start, how does a mentally incompetent person
do all this? Only Special Ops trained persons can function at those levels
of efficiency under the circumstances involved in the shooting.
Or how about:
6. The faked tape evidence mailed from the USA anonymously that included
computer altered images of the 'shooter' with Bryant's still image pasted on
it in each frame?
7. The 39 days of solitary confinement that Bryant underwent (illegally)
before being 'interviewed'
8. the fact that the largest mass murder in history was apparently taped
with only one camera which 'failed' and in which therefore there are edited
parts as well (as admitted by the crown prosecutor) as the fact that the
audio is not in sinch with the video.
Go on....argue them points one at a time.
I fully expect you to snip them and avoid every one of them. Followed of
course by some irrelevant comment.
You remain at best a LOON, at worst, another brainwashed example of
government propaganda buddy.
Wake up.
G.
>
> > What is YOUR idea of what
> > happened at PA based on?
>
> Errr, bryant's own admissions mainly....
>
>
> > The voices you hear in your head if you don't wear
> > your tin-foil hat?
>
> No, I'm not bryant, that's the maggot that you want to set loose.....
>
>
> > Loon.
>
> Oh I see, you're one of his pals. Killed anyone yourself lately?
>
>
Hunter
> So exactly what is wrong with Vialls stuff concerning port Arthur?
It's no different than his other 5 or so conspiracy theories???
> Name specifics or get out of the argument noise-boy.
Well considering he was found guilty I would assume the onus is on you
conspiracy theorists to disprove his guilt, so fire away, I'll be more than
happy to respond.
> Vialls arguments are based on empirical studies.
Do tell! Examples please....
jimbo
>
>Chris G wrote in message <38f8...@news.iprimus.com.au>...
>
>
>>>Then, we'll end up like the Japs....
>>>NO private gun ownership and crims armed to the teeth!
>>>Welcome to the Brave New World of the Gun Grabberz!
>>
>>Tokyo had something like 11 murders with a firearm last year.
>I cannot support that number with a reference, but look at this (to show
>Japan's rates):
>
>http://www.gunfree.org/csgv/intchart.htm
...an excellently objective source. About as credible as
a Mickey Mouse comic!
>DEATHS DUE TO FIREARMS PER 100,000
>
> Total Firearm Deaths Firearm
>Homicides Firearm Suicides Fatal Firearm Accidents
>
>America (13.7%) 35,957 (6.0%)
>15,835 (7.0%) 18,503 (0.5%) 1,225
>
>Australia (3.05%) 536
>(0.56%) 96 (2.38%) 420 (0.11%) 20
>
>Japan (0.07%) 93
>(0.03%) 34 (0.04%) 49 (0.01%) 10
>
>
>The Japanese are not suffering at all, are they Jimbo? They never even
>reach 0.1%. Also, if you've spoken to anyone who's been there, they'll
tell
>you there's virtually no crime. Young women can even catch the trains in
>the middle of the night. Armed to the teeth criminals is horseshit for
this
>country. For our country, it is different (because our black market's just
>tripled).
Once again, you reveal yr pathetic ignorance, and that(despite yr
protestations) u are a case study in media brainwashing!
Now you know why I am apt to hang the PC label on _u_:
u more or less merit it(or, at least, qualify for 'honorary membership!)
Check these for the true situation in Japan:
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~confiles/overseas.html#10.
http://www.ssaa.org.au/crab5.html.
****************************************************************************
********************
(from the above site and, also, broadly from David Kopel's book:
'The Samurai, the Mountie and the Cowboy')
Part of Japan's low crime rate is explained by the efficiency of its
criminal justice system,
fewer protections of the right to privacy, and fewer rights for criminal
suspects than exist
in the United States. Japanese police routinely search citizens at will and
twice a year
pay "home visits" to citizens' residences. Suspect confession rate is 95%
and trial conviction
rate is over 99.9% . The Tokyo Bar Association has said that the Japanese
police routinely "
...engage in torture or illegal treatment. Even in cases where suspects
claimed to have
been tortured and their bodies bore the physical traces to back their
claims, courts have
still accepted their confessions." Neither the powers and secrecy of the
police nor the
docility of defense counsel would be acceptable to most Americans. **In
addition, the
Japanese police understate the amount of crime, particularly covering up the
problem
of organised crime, in order to appear more efficient and worthy of the
respect the citizens
have for the police. **
****************************************************************************
********************
------------
Cheers Y'all!
(jimbo)
Hunter
> Well...there we have it...propaganda and content-free statements in one fell
> swoop.
Yeah, that's how I found Vialls' stuff as well.
> Vialls argues the facts. What do you do?
No he invents facts, how about instead of referring to him all the time you try
to actually put forward some of these so called facts?
> Make noise, refuse to enter into specifics and make irrelevant comments like
> the one below about being found guilty. Guilty of what? by whom? Just trying
> to throw people off the scent are we?
How about throwing up some of your own facts instead of farting in the wind. For
a laugh you could try proving Vialls' theory that Port Arthur was a "UN backed
Psyop" for example. What a fucking joke......
> Jesus, you sad government fucks need training.
Oh, and yet a new conspiracy, now I'm a government agent sent here to antagonise
you am I? Do you look under your bed before you go to sleep each night too?
> Well, let's start with:
> 1. the shooter was firing point index shooting from the right hip. Bryant is
> left handed.
Really? Give me proof besides Vialls' garbage. I can also cook up a document
like his which says the opposite of everything he says, so how about a RELIABLE
source of proof.
> 2. The shooter had a wound to kill ration of 1.6 to 1. Unheard of in any
> other random shooting ever, anywhere in the world.
Truly? As above.
> 3. The shooter fired 29 out of 30 shots, killing 22 people with 19 head
> shots in a space of less than 30 seconds, then waited in the cafe now turned
> abbatoir alongside living survivors, knowing he could not be overpowered due
> to his markmanship and shooting technique (turning and shooting a couple of
> shots so as to not remain facing one direction)
So?
> 4. Bryant had never fired anything other than an air-gun until a few weeks
> prior to the shooting incident.
Who says?
> 5. The shhoter stopped two vehicles with 6 shots, using a technique
> developed in Israel to stop suicide bombers in cars.
I had to laugh at that when I read it too, the Tripoli 3 or some such crap
doesn't he call it? Yet again, you know of this from anywhere besides Vialls'
twisted mind?
> Answer me those points for a start, how does a mentally incompetent person
> do all this? Only Special Ops trained persons can function at those levels
> of efficiency under the circumstances involved in the shooting.
Holy fuck... You truly do believe the UN was responsible. Well there goes any
chance of a sane conversation with you. Careful, I heard the Illuminati was
looking for you.
> Or how about:
> 6. The faked tape evidence mailed from the USA anonymously that included
> computer altered images of the 'shooter' with Bryant's still image pasted on
> it in each frame?
How about those damn martians that were in his back yard speaking to him the
night before?
> 7. The 39 days of solitary confinement that Bryant underwent (illegally)
> before being 'interviewed'
How about the rack they stretched him on?
> 8. the fact that the largest mass murder in history was apparently taped
> with only one camera which 'failed' and in which therefore there are edited
> parts as well (as admitted by the crown prosecutor) as the fact that the
> audio is not in sinch with the video.
sinch?
> Go on....argue them points one at a time.
Only after you prove those points one at a time, until then they're no more
valid than my line about the martians, and are most definately no more likely to
be proven either. You spit back the ravings of a rabid mind as if they're
gospel, I'm afraid that just doesn't cut it.
> I fully expect you to snip them and avoid every one of them. Followed of
> course by some irrelevant comment.
No, I'm not one of you conspiracy theorists. Why don't you answer this question
straight out. Do you believe that it was a "UN backed PsyOp" in Port Arthur as
your hero Vialls believes??? I just want everyone to get a clear picture of your
level of sanity, and your answer to this question will give us that picture.
> You remain at best a LOON
Monty Python obviously left a lasting impression on you.
> at worst, another brainwashed example of
> government propaganda buddy.
Yeah I'm a secret agent and glow in the dark, I've also got x-ray vision and I
can fly. For fucks sake, grow a brain.
> Wake up.
hahahaha. Stop tripping, reality has much fewer conspiracies.
Chris G
jimbo wrote in message <38f9...@news.alphalink.com.au>...
>Chris G wrote in message <38f88d82$1...@news.iprimus.com.au>...
>>
>>Chris G wrote in message <38f8...@news.iprimus.com.au>...
>>
>>
>>>>Then, we'll end up like the Japs....
>>>>NO private gun ownership and crims armed to the teeth!
>>>>Welcome to the Brave New World of the Gun Grabberz!
>>>
>>>Tokyo had something like 11 murders with a firearm last year.
>
>>Japan's rates):
>>
>>http://www.gunfree.org/csgv/intchart.htm
>
>...an excellently objective source. About as credible as
>a Mickey Mouse comic!
As credible as your sources. Again, you've most likely never been to Japan
or know anyone who has lived there. When you do find someone, ask them what
they think of the absence of violent crime, and of street crime
(particularly the latter).
>
>>DEATHS DUE TO FIREARMS PER 100,000
>>
>> Total Firearm Deaths Firearm
>>Homicides Firearm Suicides Fatal Firearm Accidents
>>
>>America (13.7%) 35,957 (6.0%)
>>15,835 (7.0%) 18,503 (0.5%) 1,225
>>
>>Australia (3.05%) 536
>>(0.56%) 96 (2.38%) 420 (0.11%) 20
>>
>>Japan (0.07%) 93
>>(0.03%) 34 (0.04%) 49 (0.01%) 10
>>
>>
>>The Japanese are not suffering at all, are they Jimbo? They never even
>>reach 0.1%. Also, if you've spoken to anyone who's been there, they'll
>tell
>>you there's virtually no crime. Young women can even catch the trains in
>>the middle of the night. Armed to the teeth criminals is horseshit for
>this
>>country. For our country, it is different (because our black market's
just
>>tripled).
>
>Once again, you reveal yr pathetic ignorance, and that(despite yr
>protestations) u are a case study in media brainwashing!
You have a clear mind, don't you Jimbo? LOL!
If you could even read the media, you'd realise they are never stuck on one
side of the fence as far as guns are concerned. They side with whatever
makes better news, but because of idiots like you, they often give shooters
a bad name.
>Now you know why I am apt to hang the PC label on _u_:
>u more or less merit it(or, at least, qualify for 'honorary membership!)
No, I still don't think you grasp the concept. If I was truly PC, would I
continually use sexist references to a person by saying him or he and not
him/her or he/she?
>
>Check these for the true situation in Japan:
>http://www.ozemail.com.au/~confiles/overseas.html#10.
>http://www.ssaa.org.au/crab5.html.
Jimbo, neither of your sites disprove the above. One talks about organised
crime, and the other about suicides. One is from the SSAA (if you want to
talk about Mickey Mouse, here you go for biases), and the other preaching
the Safety Con. What were you saying about objective?
You just don't like the figures because it disproves your horseshit.
America (1995) 13.7%
Australia (1994) 3.05%
Japan (1995) 0.07%
Not hard to work out, eh? Personally I prefer what we have in Australia to a
complete ban like Japan, however, I'd like to see semi-automatic rifles be
reintroduced but with more restrictions on the owners.
Letting anyone to a gun? No way... we don't let anyone to a car, and even a
driver's licence should be harder to obtain (considering so many people find
it hard to use a bloody roundabout!). You're a whinger, Jimbo. If you
really wanted a gun, you'd go and get one.
Chris
>------------
>Cheers Y'all!
>
>
>(jimbo)
>
>
>
>
jimbo
>jimbo wrote in message <38f9...@news.alphalink.com.au>...
>>Chris G wrote in message <38f88d82$1...@news.iprimus.com.au>...
>>>
>>>Chris G wrote in message <38f8...@news.iprimus.com.au>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Then, we'll end up like the Japs....
>>>>>NO private gun ownership and crims armed to the teeth!
>>>>>Welcome to the Brave New World of the Gun Grabberz!
>>>>
>>>>Tokyo had something like 11 murders with a firearm last year.
>>
>>>Japan's rates):
>>>
>>>http://www.gunfree.org/csgv/intchart.htm
>>
>>...an excellently objective source. About as credible as
>>a Mickey Mouse comic!
>
>As credible as your sources. Again, you've most likely never been to Japan
>or know anyone who has lived there. When you do find someone, ask them
what
>they think of the absence of violent crime, and of street crime
>(particularly the latter).
The sources I quote use facts and evidence Yours dont...thatz the
difference!
(or they cite flawed studies like the Kellerman study!)
<snip>
>If you could even read the media, you'd realise they are never stuck on one
>side of the fence as far as guns are concerned. They side with whatever
>makes better news, but because of idiots like you, they often give shooters
>a bad name.
And itz because of idiots like u that we now have the Gun Grab Laws
>>Now you know why I am apt to hang the PC label on _u_:
>>u more or less merit it(or, at least, qualify for 'honorary membership!)
>No, I still don't think you grasp the concept. If I was truly PC, would I
>continually use sexist references to a person by saying him or he and not
>him/her or he/she?
big deal. Yr thinking's PC. Are you in fact a gun owner or just a friggin'
TROLL? You wouldn't be so keen to criticise the SSAA if u were!
(especially when they've backed their stuff up...unlike yr crap!)
>>Check these for the true situation in Japan:
>>http://www.ozemail.com.au/~confiles/overseas.html#10.
>>http://www.ssaa.org.au/crab5.html.
>Jimbo, neither of your sites disprove the above. One talks about organised
>crime, and the other about suicides. One is from the SSAA (if you want to
>talk about Mickey Mouse, here you go for biases), and the other preaching
>the Safety Con. What were you saying about objective?
....sorry: u must not have read the material properly.
Here it is agin for u:
****************************************
Japanese police understate the amount of crime,
particularly covering up the problem of organised
crime, in order to appear more efficient and
worthy of the respect the citizens have for the police.
****************************************
What have u got to disprove that? Or the Japanese Government material about
handguns? Put up, or shut up, schmuck!
>You just don't like the figures because it disproves your horseshit.
Yr the only horseshitter around here, schmuck!
>America (1995) 13.7%
>Australia (1994) 3.05%
>Japan (1995) 0.07%
(understated by 10%?)
>Not hard to work out, eh? Personally I prefer what we have in Australia to
a
>complete ban like Japan, however, I'd like to see semi-automatic rifles be
>reintroduced but with more restrictions on the owners.
U could have fooled me.......!
>Letting anyone to a gun? No way... we don't let anyone to a car, and even
a
>driver's licence should be harder to obtain (considering so many people
find
>it hard to use a bloody roundabout!).
Sorry....am I restricted from buying certain types of cars, if I have the
money?
Come to think of it....if I am over 18, can I not buy _any_ care that
strikes my fancy(if I can afford it)? Even if I _haven't_ got a licence....
I may not be able to drive it on the road, but I _can_ drive it on a private
property!
Get a better analogy, clown!
> You're a whinger, Jimbo.
..and yr a schmuck!
>If you really wanted a gun, you'd go and get one.
sure i could..._if_ I done it illegally. But i have this little
fetish of abiding by the law of the land. If I don't like it,
I try to contribute to changing it!
jimbo
>Perhaps we should examine what was taught in schools 50yrs ago as compared
>to the
>type of trash taught today? Perhaps we should compare church attendances?
>Whatever the reason.....do you now deny that the society of 2000A.D is
>an equally safe place to the society of 1950!
]Have I ever denied that you moron? I deny the term SKYROCKET because it's
]bullshit.
"Oh yeh, I encounter one of these EVERDAY of the week. These people are out
there, but look at what you're saying. There's no "chock-a-block"
anything."
"These people are out there.....There's no "chock-a-block" anything."
Wot do those two(2) prhrases mean, taken in conjunction?
The implication is clear......they _may_ exist but their presence is
incidental/minuscule. Compared to the virtual non-existence of such
crimes in the 1950s, we are now CHOCK-A-BLOCK with them.
If we got much more, we'd be _OVERFLOWING_
Get it?!
>[Please DO! I will take great pleasure in exposing you as even more of a
>schmuck than you have already demonstrated yourself to be!]
>
>> Is this a dream or
>>is this reality? HELLO! Earth to Chris G....anyone home?
>
>]It's as real as your "skyrocketing" ABS figures which, funnily enough, the
>]ABS don't agree with.
>
>Look again. If you can't understand figure comparisons....perhaps
>a graph might help?
>(http://www.ssaa.org.au/Doc24.htm.)
]What's wrong, not happy with the ABS figures?
Quite happy. I'm _unhappy_ with yr bodgie interpretation of them, is all!
]That graph's interestingly drawn to take in suckers like you... notice it
]focuses on a small section, ie only 75000?
Thatz the relevant section...post-Gun Grab I'm just waiting for u to start
criticising
their ‘scale'. Sheeezzzz....wot a WANKER!
]Second thing... notice the curve before the gun buy back scheme? It's
]exactly the same. Stupid!
Itz the curve _after_ the Gun Grab thatz important....notice the steep
increase?
It couldn't be plainer! Sheezzzzz....didn't u do ‘graphs' at school? Did
you, in fact,
go to school at all?!
>The point is: IF THEY BREAK INTO a HOUSE WHEN THE
>OCCUPANTS are MOST LIKELY HOME, THEY CLEARLY DON'T GIVE A
>TOSS ABOUT WHETHER THEY ARE HOME OR NOT?
]This has alreay been covered. When they are alseep is better than when
they
]are away from home, simply because of outside witnesses.
Baloney. The ideal time to break in is when they are
absent(that is: assuming u don't want a confrontation). The material I
posted
from Prfssr Kleck's book(did u even bother to
read it?), indicates that this is the modus operandi
of burglars when there is widespread gun
ownership. Of course, since Oz doesn't now have widespread
gun ownership, any old time will do...won't it?! The thugs get braver in
inverse proportion to the amount of guns available
throughout the communtiy.
>Sorry....what serious academic surveys were u quoting from again?
]Just the ABS. You know, something Australian.
Kleck's material is a thorough analysis and explosion of the typical
anti-gun loon arguments.
Since the US is a high-gun owning society, it would seem
ideal to study such claims. Also, the cultural differences between Oz
and the US are fairly minimal(as opposed to the
cultural differences between ,say, Oz and Japan)
Furthermore, statistics on their own are not convincing
unless placed into the framework of a theory....analysed, interpreted and
explained!
They can be easily misunderstood and abused....
As is evidenced by yr efforts!
>Allowing for cultural differences, these trends could
>be argued as also being the case in Oz. That is:
>more widespread gun ownership==less burglaries==
>less confrontation with burglars.The significant increase
>in burglary rates post-Gun Grab is just too much of
>a coincidence to be passed over!
]DUH! Look at your graph. The rate of increase has not budged, has it?
Have you got a vision prblm or something? There is
a _clear_ increase....quite a steep one, in fact!
>> When they appear,
>>no doubt u'll be changing yr shit-eating tune......!
>
>]Oh I'm sure, Jimbo. I'm sure they'll "skyrocket".
>
>Believe it, SCHMUCK! They'll go through the roof!
>In the meantime, chew on this.....
>********************************
>Article from the Melbourne Herald Sun_news pictorial,
>thurs, april 29,1999; pg 10
>Title: Syringe robbery fear. Needle threats soar by 100%
>by:peter mickelburough (chief police reporter)
>Recorded crimes with a weapon in Victoria:
>Year: 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 (half year)
>Firearm
> 447 372 473 485 520 256
]Slight decrease in last year (assuming final figure x 2).
But look at the increase from 1994/95(pre-Gun Grab).....473 to, let's
say, a final figure of 520 for 1998/99(it's probably much higher.....but
we'll settle for no increase from the previous yr).
That makes an _increase_ of almost 10%.
So: the most violent crime(with firearms) that the Gun Grab was
‘intended' to prevent(actually, the likes of PM Howard never claimed that
the community would be safer because of the Gun Grab anyway....
http://www.ssaa.org.au/quoteozpm.html )
has _increased_, if not substantially, at least significantly.
Rather odd, wouldncha say?
>knife
> 1289 868 748 1410 1853 943
]No change...
Half-year chump! That makes 1846 (or more) for the total
868 to 1846 represents a whopping _increase_ of....113%
OUCH!
>bar/bat
> 391 256 233 363 457 254
]Slight rise...
We can live with it...
>Bottle/glass
> 241 179 136 246 306 163
]Slight rise...
As above. .......prbly pub brawls!
>Syringe
> 32 19 31 83 141 187
]Huge rise!
Well, therez more junkies, thatz for sure.....but the
nmbrs themselves give no cause for alarm.
Unlike that for guns and knives: where we're either talking
of increases in the several _hundreds_ or incidents in the
several _hundreds_(with no comparable change!)
>(dunno wot all the fuss about æsyringes' is! )
]It's exceptionally low to use a syringe I guess.
Yeah, well...junkies, thugs and crims are exceptionally low
people anyway...sooo.......!
>(*Note_i:These are official police figure....the same type
>of figures utilised by ABS;
>*Note_ii:The 1999 figures are only for the -yr, but already
>show an ominous trend;
]Yeh, that they're nearly all exactly the same (except for syringes).
Nope! Knives show a _staggering_ increase and
firearms show at least a significant increase(and a more worrying one,
because all those nasty guns were supposed to have been
removed from the community...._remember_?)
>*Note_iii: Since Vctr & NSW have the largest ppltns, _by_far_
>of all the mainland states and, hence, the largest nmbr of crims
>we would expect increasing violent crime rates, if any, to
>be most dramatically mirrored there;
>*Note_iv:These figures are for violent crime, generally.
>There is no delineation re: unlawful entries. However,
>it is probably fair to say[and taking into account the
>significant increase in 1998 unlawful entries] that, if
>violent crimes generally rise, then so do burglaries.
]It's not probably fair to say anything of the sort.
It most certainly is.....as all the serious academic studies demonstrate.
And as the material I posted concerning violent crimes in ‘gun restricted'
areas in the US shows.
Crims get many times more bolder and brazener when they don't
have contend with armed house-holders or armed business-owners....
remember that quote from Prfssr Kleck that you probably didn't read?
>>U'v also got the wrong link.........u should have gone here:
>>http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/c311215.NSF/Australia+Now+-+A+Statistical
+
>P
>>rofile/2C2A842ACC44F31DCA2567220072E990.
>
>]The above link works for me. What's wrong, you don't like the figures I
>]posted above? It means that breakins occur to only 5% of households, up
>]from 4.4% in 1993. Hardly skyrocketing.
>
>Perhaps we're talking about two different sets of figures from the ABS
>Is the ABS being shifty here? Wotz going on?
>NO: _YOUR'RE_ the one whoz GOT it WRONG, pal....
>The figure show almost an _8.5%_ increase from 1996-1998 in
>unlawful entries. Here they are again.......
]I've got it wrong? I pasted from the ABS and gave you the page. Note the
]change in mine is from 1993-1998. The rise is 0.6% of total households, or
]a 7.3% rise in the number of households robbed in 1993.
A rise in the nmbr of households doesn't correlate 100% with the rise in the
number of
burglaries. The same house could have been burgled several times, or
different
criteria could have been used to define ‘households burgled'(exmpl: pay-out
on
insurance claims) Wot counts is the nmbr of burglaries _reported_ to police!
]DO YOU UNDERSTAND?
DO U?
>]In 1998, of all unlawful entries, 79% were carried out with the intent to
>]steal property. The remaining 21% were carried out with the intent to
harm
>]the occupants or property.
>]So that means, to our argument, Jimbo, that 79% of the time, the thief is
>]there to steal. The other 21% are the ones intent on smashing either you
>or
>]your property.
>
>Nope it doesn't....because we don't know how much æoverlap'[if any] there
>is in the æarmed robbery' stats for a start. Also, we don't know what
>type of æproperties' the 21% is referring to _and_ what % of the 79%
>overlaps
>with the 21%[if any]. We also do not know what % of the 79% were
>aware of(or even cared) if the owner was home or not. Those are
>called HIDDEN VARIABLES, if you ever bother to study statistics!
]For fuck's sake, Jimbo, the article specifically shows a split between
]PERSONAL and PROPERTY crimes. So: 79% are there to steal, 21% want to bash
]your arse.
Not necessarily. Without further qualification, we are not at liberty
to make such a clear-cut distinction. There
may _well_ be overlap involved here!
>> Or, how the ABS defines
>>'a burglary'.
>]Yeh, it makes the distinction at the top...
>
>]"Nationally, offences against property (unlawful entry with intent, motor
>]vehicle theft and other theft)" - PROPERTY
>
>]"This age group had the highest victimisation rates for manslaughter,
>sexual
>]assault, kidnapping/abduction, armed robbery and unarmed robbery" -
>PERSONAL
>
>overlap, hidden variables,
]...bullshitting,
"The relationship between....two variables plotted cannot be understood
without knowledge about a third variable...You should be cautious in
drawing conclusions from a strong relationship appearing in a scatterplot
until you understand what other variables may be lurking in the
background....
[Dftn: A lurking variable is a variable that has an important effect on the
response but
is not included among the explanatory variables studied]...
Lurking variables can dramatically change the conclusions of a regression
study.
Because lurking variables are often unrecognized and unmeasured, detecting
their effect is a challenge. Many lurking variables change systematically
over time......."
(from: ‘Introduction to the Practice of Statistics' by David S Moore &
George
P McCabe; W H Freeman & Cmpny, New York, 1993, 2nd edtn; pgs 104 &129).
[McCabe and Moore use the term ‘lurking' instead of ‘hidden'....but it's the
same thing!]
>]The only think that skyrocketed was armed robbery, which is not committed
>]against the householder according to these figures. If it did, then the
>]armed and unarmed robbery figures would be WAY in excess of the total
>number
>]of unlawful entries.
>And æarmed robbery' is defined as......?
]PERSONAL crime, not PROPERTY.
Wot the hell's a burglary then.....where the owner is at home?
>]I regard him as some punk on drugs who wants to flog all my nice gear to
>buy
>]more drugs.
>
>....and a dangerous punk at that.
]Not most of the time, especially if you have a gun.
Keep on believing that, schmuck....u might eventually convince
yr-self!....until
the day one of these psychos appears in yr bed-room at 3 a.m.
>]Bullshit, if you really feared for your life you'd move to another cheap
>]area that lacked the violence your area does. I just moved from a dodgey
>]neighbourhood. The Feds had the place under surveillance for weeks
because
>]of an organised drug job going on through one of the tenants. Not to
>]mention all the domestics and evictions the police had to stop around for.
>]Solution? Move to another cheap neighbourhood. You'll find there are
some
>]shit ones, and some relatively good ones.
>
>U don't know the Mlbrn area too well do you? Most, if not all,
>of the æcheapo' areas have high crime rates. Many of them were
>previously settled by, or settled later by, Housing Commission tenants
>who are, basically, mostly low-lifes and boob heads.(why? Because
>no decent Real Estate Agent would rent to them!) That's why anyone who
>knows Mlbrn well lives either some way out(in semi-rural areas) or
>in the Eastern suburbs....sometimes called æthe stockbroker belt'
>Naturally, the prices for renting and buying here reflect this.
>Sorry: I live where I live because of economic and financial constraints.
>PERIOD!
]I've never heard anyone in Melbourne say they fear for their life, and most
]live in lower cost rented residences. Though one's loaded ;)
Its the _area_, not how much they're paying for rent. And, of course,
seeing as how you don't know everyone living in the down-market
areas anyway,or even a goodly % of them, and seeing as how you
haven't lived there yourself or read the crime reports in
the local newspapers.....&c &c!
(Too fast for ya?)
>>>Err, this was 1992-1995. Here's a fact that may astound you: crime
>>existed
>>>before they took away assault rifles. Another fact: you do not need a
>>semi
>>>auto rifle to kill someone.
>>
>>Here's a fact that may astound YOU: crime has _risen_ (I'd say
>>substantially)
>]Armed robbery. Don't you think that contradicts the gun grab? More
>robbers
>]are arming themselves, but less of the population have guns. Hmmmmmm.
>
>Not at all. Why? Because crims always find guns easy to get.
>And where civilian guns are scarce, a burgeoning black market soon
>appears. Availble to _crims_ of course(junkies, bikies,thugs,armed robbers,
>burglars, whoever)
>_NOT_ to Joe Q Public! Thatz why Prfssr John Lott wrote a book called
>"More Guns Equals Less Crime" Perhaps you should read it?!
]LOL! I agree with this, so why are you telling me? Trying to evade the
]above? If the population have more guns, why are more crims arming
]themsevles? Threat has diminished. Availability of guns doesn't make
crims
]go and get more guns, it just makes them easier to get ig they want one.
Well, for a start, you _can't_ be agreeing with me, can you?
My claim is summed up thus: "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have
guns"
*Crims can always get guns;
*They hardly ever get them from ‘regular' sources anyway;
*When the public is basically disarmed, that only leaves the crims with
guns;
*When only the crims have guns, they are that much more bolder and brazener
and
all sorts of crime(including violent crime) increases...get the picture?
Did you examine those US Statistics I posted? Did you read the stuff I
posted
from Prfssr Kleck's book? Have you read the research done by Prffsrs Lott
and Mustard
confirming this? Guess not! OTW, you wouldn't be trotting out totally
discredited
anti-gun loon lines like: "Availability of guns doesn't make crims go and
get more guns,
it just makes them easier to get ig they want one."(that is: reduce the nmbr
of guns in the
community and the crims will have less guns too!)
Here's an interview with the man in question:
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html.
Interview with Prfssr Kleck:
http://www.ssaa.org.au/kleck.html.
>>since they TOOK AWAY ASSAULT RIFLES(there you go with yr straw men
>>again....a .22 semi-auto isn't an ASSAULT RIFLE you FUCKWIT!)
>
>]You specified .22 afterwards you bloody idiot.
>
>Yr the one brought up the term æassault rifles' I never initially mentioned
>it.
>Or do you class all semi-auto rifles as æassault rifles' If so, yr in good
>company with yr anti-gun loon mates!
]How am I anti-gun? I'm anti-idiot gun owners.
U continually trot out anti-gun loon lines. Like: their should be
substantial
restrictions on firearms ownership and less guns==less crime.
And, because there are ‘idiot gun owners' we should restrict guns?
Does the same argument wash with cars? Motorbikes? Chain-saws?
Skateboards?
>>No: u _don't_ need an ASSAULT rifle to kill someone. A .22 semi-auto will
>>do just as well....or a semi-auto shtgn.....or even a pump-action
>>shotgun....or
>>even a centrefire/civilian semi-auto...ALL NOW PROSCRIBED by the
>>Gun Grabbers!
>
>]You don't understand do you? If you cared so much about your need to kill
>]perps to save your life, you'd buy a bloody pistol. But this doesn't seem
>]to make any difference to you does it? So I have to assume you're ranting
>]on about the other guns just because they're no longer available, not
>]because you're really interested in effectively wiping out thieves.
>
>I'm ranting on about guns because me, and people I know, are now in DANGER
>of being molested by rampaging thugs, thnx to the Gun Grab.
]Did you get your gun taken from you?
I sold it before the Gun Grab. Post-Gun Grab, and with the new draconican
restrictions,
I couldn't be bothered re-applying(especially when they introduced a 10+ pg
application form
in Victoria)
>Pistols are difficult to get in Victr(legally, that is!) and involve a
>substantial
>waiting period,
]Aren't the laws uniform now? That was the point of the centralised gun
]laws. If you fear for your life, you can wait for the licence.
Sorry...if you fear for yr life...you _can't_ wait weeks for a licence. You
need
a gun _quick_. Since I have extensive home security I am, mercifully, spared
that anxiety. Others are not so lucky!
> expensive storage requirements and mind-numbing bureaucratic
>bullshit. Also, a pistol licence can be revoked more or less on a whim by
>_ANY_ police officer,firearm bureaucrat or local GP and takes months, if
not
>years(two or three, by the time it gets to a court) to have re-instated!
]So don't go doing silly things with it.
itz other people's silly complaints that usually end up in u losing it....
u don't even have to take it out of the gun safe!
Do the initials AVO mean anything to u?!
>Also: you cannot put down on your application form as
>æReason for owning pistol'....self-protection!
]No shit, you put sports/hobby and join a gun club (which you should do
]anyway).
..yeah! But you shouldn't have to! ‘Self-protection' should be a valid
reason for owning a firearm.
><snippo!>
>
>>U dunno wot the HELL yr saying and haven't since u decided to BUTT IN
>>to this post! Next time a drugged-out psycho turns up in yr bed-room at
>>3a.m, I'll read with interest how y'all sat down and had a nice cup of tea
>>and a place of iced vo-vos. U INSUFFERABLE FUCKWIT U!
>
>]Oh, now you've gone off the deep end, haven't you? I said I'd shoot down
>]any real threat to my livelihood. You WANT to kill anything that moves
>that
>]shouldn't be on your property, "just incase".
>
>NOT æanything that moves' Just thugs that move around my
>living-room/bed-room
>uninvited and in a threatening manner at 3 o bloody clock in the morning!
]No, not in a threatening manner you liar. Your justification is that IF
]they are IN YOUR HOUSE, then they are AUTOMATICALLY A THREAT (because they
]don't care if you're there or not, and as you say, are all psychos). Are
]you now backtracking and agreeing with me?
I wouldn't agree with _u_ in a black and blue fit, champ!
Sorry, shit-fa-brainz: if they're in yr bedroom at 3a.m: they're
a threat. If they're _moving_ , they're a threat again!
Unless they're sitting there nice and compliantly awaiting the cops,
they're _moving in a threatening manner_!
End of story!
>>Where are the home owners at night? Aren't they at home?
>
>]Asleep, Einstein.
>
>Sure they are, Mr Hawking! They're all in comas...and unable to
>be woken by: creaking floorboards, moving furniture, breaking windows,
>sneezing, coughing,talking, whatever.....are we talking about burglars
>or friggin' GHOSTS?!
]I didn't realise you were so aware of your surroundings when you were
]asleep. Maybe you're a cyborg and you passively scan your house for
]movement 24/7.
Nope. Just, on occasion and like many people, a light sleeper.
>>If they didn't want to confront the owners, the ideal time would be
>>_during the day_. Ok: they might be seen(but not if they're careful)
>>'Neighbourhood Watch' ain't worth a crock!
>
>]The risk of being seen and having their vehicle seen in the day time is
too
>]high, compared to risking waking up the owners at night.
>
>..not if most people in the neighbourhood are also at work, the vehicle is
>parked in a secluded spot/some distance away, they are wearing over-alls
and
>look like regular workmen, the people in the neighbourhood couldn't
>give a toss what happens to their neighbours &c &c....u know!
>All the things that most burglars æcheck out' before they go a burgurgling!
]This is true in some cases, I guess it depends where you live (ie. in one
of
]my old neighbourhood you had retirees watering their lawns all the time,
too
]much activity there for robbing in the day... we had a stretch of several
]robberies in that street where the burglars lifted tiles of the roof and
]came in through the roof at night).
..whatever. An enterprising burglar will also check out the
local surrondings and getaway routes(the more the better)
>>>A home invasion is aimed at harrassing and harming the occupants. I've
>>said
>>>this like 4 times, which part do you not get?
>>
>>No....itz the part YOU don't get.....and I'v said it THREE TIMES now....
>>burglar confronts home-owner==aggravated burglary ~home invasion!
>>Same bloke, differrent haircut!
>]Alright, well you call it whatever you want if it makes you happy, I'm
>going
>]by the police defintion (or what they report it as to the papers in press
>]releases).
>
>Perhaps you'd care to explain the fine line of distinction between
>æaggravated burglary' and æhome invasion'?!
]Home invasion never intends to use stealth. Aggravated burglary turns
]agrravated when stealth fails (and are they types we are talking about).
Nope! You missed one....an aggravated burglary can be where a burglar
burgles a dwelling intending to take on the occupier, if necessary...going
in
to a dwelling ready,willing and able to engage in a confrontation is pretty
much the same as a home invasion.
This putting ‘burglars' and ‘home invaders' in two different categories
ain't
gunna work, champ! Therez no such thing as the nice,polite ‘midnight
visitor'
these days..yr living in a time warp! They're all psycho thugs....as
evidenced by
the frequent media stories concerning bashed-up old age pensioners.
(There was a plague of ‘em a coupla years ago in an inner-Sydney suburb....
Can't remember which one exactly...)
And some of the _bashers_ were less than 20yrs old....i.e: still technically
_teen-agers_. So much for the polite thief scenario!
>]That's a really interesting opinion. I studied Journalism, and
>]unfortunately for you, all local, metropolitan, regional and national
>papers
>]are considered mainstream
>
>by who? Local papers rely on the local community to keep going.
]By their owners, by journalists. BTW, their news feeds come from national
]papers and international news networks, otherwise, how do you think they
]ever get stories outside of their town? It's not like they can employ
]national corespondents.
The vast bulk of material in local newspapers is just that...._local_
>]UNLESS they specify a certain bias, or write to a
>]niche readership. Local papers are also considered (by Journalists
anyway)
>]to be tabloids.
>Those wouldn't be the same journos who make up the
>anti-gun loon brigade, would it?
]Most journalists know shit-all about guns and have no interest in them.
They may know ‘shit-all' about guns, but they sure as hell have an
_interest_ in them....as evidenced by the SHIT they tipped on
gun owners and shooters post-Prt Arthur. Or are u gunna
actually deny that? Am I gunna have to start posting up some of
the worthless bullshit yr neutral journos wrote in the major metros....
U can chew on this while yr thinking about that......
http://www.mrc.org/news/mediawatch/1997/mw19970701stud.html.
>]Maybe you should go to your paper and tell them they're not mainstream
>]though, that would add some humour to their morning.
>
>They're not æmainstream' in the sense the big metro dailies are...and
>_u_ know it. U'v just gotta look at some of the jerk-offs writing
>æopinion pieces' in the metro broadsheets! Try the Courier-Mail!
>Its _chockas_ with femi-nazi, politically correct THUGs!
]I hate that chick... she is someone I'd class as PC. I forget her name.
]You're a bit liberal with the PC label though. Anyone who doesn't agree
]with you, you coin PC.
Hmmm.......well.....people can have ‘PC attitudes' without necessarily
being kosher PC!
>>>> and the ABS figures.
>>>Well now I know you are simply lying, as above, the ABS shows a very
>slight
>>>increase in break ins.
>>
>>Well now, I know you simply don't know what the hell yr talking about,
>>because the ABS figures show almost a 8 % increase in break-ins.
>>That ain't _slight_. 0.8 is slight....BUT NOT 8+%
>
>]Sorry, you're right... I am wrong, 4.4 to 5% = 0.6% increase... sorry
about
>]that.
>
>Sorry..u got ya head up ya rectum.
>The increase is 9.4% from two year previous, and 8.5% for total burglaries
]LOL! They're DIFFERENT sets of figures. They may have increased by 8.5%,
]but the increase of break ins in my figures were from 1993-1998 and the
]total increase was 0.6% of TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS... not of those robbed in the
]previous year. Do you get why they are different figures now?
Already discussed above. We're talking about _crimes_reported_to_the_police_
Thatz all that counts here!
>>>>They all show _skyrocketing_ violent crime right here in good
>>>>ol' Oz! What planet are u living on?!
>
>>>The only think skyrocketing is your imagination. Actually visiting the
>ABS
>>>website might help, rather than just pretending.
>>
>>Take yr own advice And do some serious reading on constructing arguments
>>and backing them up while yr at it!
>
>]But I did, or are you going to tell me my figures aren't actually on the
>ABS
>]website?
>
>Are u going to tell me mine aren't?
]I've acknowledged yours you twit! I even discussed them. You just claimed
]mine/ABS's were wrong!
Nope....and i'v discussed it above. I _never_ claim ABS figures are wrong.
(Unless therez very substantial evidence indeed to say so!)
I can, however, query the spin people put on them.....
]I acknowledged armed robbery (a PERSONAL crime according to the ABS) went
up
]by a shitload. I acknowledged that all break ins between 1996-98 went up
by
]~8%.
Overlaps again. Cops charging aggravated burglars with ‘armed robbery' &c
]What's your problem with this? And why do you not respond to my figures?
Above......
>>>>Why shouldn't they?...unless itz _obviously_ a real one...like an under
>>>>and over 12G?
>
>>>I'm not even going to bother answering that, it is the dumbest thing I've
>>>read for quite some time.
>>
>>.......no dumber than the rubbish u'v been posting up!
>
>]No it is seriously dumb to assume that the average robber is going to
>chance
>]his life on your gun not being loaded. That's even too dumb for a B-grade
>]action flick.
>
>It'd be seriously dumb if we lived in the land of B-grade flicks.
>Since we don't, it has to qualify as a realistic possiblity, at least!
]Oh "good one Jimbo". You're re-using my comments, eh? We know you're the
]one with the big imagination and large dose of low grade action flick
script
]writing which adversely affects the way you think a break in plays out.
Ho hum! I guess all thug violence is just ‘B Grade movie scripts' and,
hence,
unreal by definition?!
>>Ho hum! They're scumbags....end of story. They enter at their own
>>risk, AFAIMC!
>
>]Which doesn't make the any less real as people. If it were you, robbing
>]someone, would you throw yourself at a gun and hope the thing wasn't
>loaded?
>
>Nope...but then I don't go æround robbing people's houses!
]Nope was all I needed, thanks.
And Nope was all ya got!....twice!
>]Drop the argument, it only makes sense if the thief is fucked on drugs,
>]which most wouldn't be until they got home (and sold your shit).
>It makes sense in Oz because Oz ain't Texas!...where u can be almost
>100% certain that if someone flashes a gun at you it is:[i]real;
>[ii]loaded and [iii]going to be used on you if you do not follow
>instructions _
>to_ _the_ _letter_ Don't forget(at least in Victr) the cops classify
>realistic-looking water pistols as guns!
>[people have even gone to court for selling them at local flea markets! I
>SHIT YOU NOT!]
]No, it doesn't even make sense in Oz. They still would not, if unaffected
]by drugs, jump at you if you have a gun.
same ol', same ol'.......
>]While there's some good points attributed to gun ownership, there are also
>]some bad ones, ie. like the type of people that are allowed to own one,
and
>]the lack of knowledge these morons have of owning, maintaining, and
>securing
>]a firearm. Those dicks are also the reason for those terrible accidents,
>]and they end up giving the responsible gun owners a bad name.
>
>The good points outweigh the bad ones by a country mile.
]So you'd let anyone over 18 have a gun of any type with few storage
]requirements and no enforced training? That's a good way to fuck the
]country up. Hey, then you won't have to move to the US, you can bring it
]right on over to Australia.
More or less. The point is, the gun laws we had pre-Gun Grab worked
just fine! The fact that we are now in the middle of a crime-wave seems
to indicate that the new ones may _not_ be working fine at all!
As per the statistics I posted re: CC laws in the US, widespread
gun ownership doesn't seem to FK anything up....it makes life quite
liveable indeed! An armed society is a polite society!
>>...and with the attendant risk of alerting the owners(which the thugs
>>no longer give a toss about, of course!)
>
>]Maybe not, but AGAIN:
>
>]a) why escalate your crime from a break and enter to an assault or murder?
>
>Because you are a drugged-out psycho anyway!
]Rarely.
]Answer the question.
That is the answer....
>]b) why risk your livelihood when you can run off and try robbing another
>]house in another neighbourhood?
>
>Because, being a drugged out psycho,
]...rarely...
Sorry...someone who regularly takes drugs and does burglaries to pay
for them does not qualify as a ‘rational thinker' in my lexicon!
>you are not a rational thinker
>anyway and, being a crim and a thug, you don't give two and a half
>tosses about someone else's pain or discomfort AS LONG as YOU GET
>WHAT YOU WANT!
]But you didn't answer the question, did you.
Sure I did....you just didn't think carefully enough about wot I wuz saying,
is all!
>]Yes but it usually happens to people who have safes etc. or somethingn
>]valuable that the robbers need the home owner to be present, to attain.
>
>Lots of people have safes. Or hidden cash. Or hidden jewelery.
]I don't. And most robbers don't know of the safe. Usually the home
invader
]knows of the person they are robbing and their business.
Most burglars always go looking for cash and jewellery though.
They also tend to do a reasonable amount of
‘searching'[pulling out draws, opening cupboards &c]
And guess what? Sooner or later, they may well find a safe and then........!
>]Yes, otherwise they're not really home invading (or doing a good job of
>it).
>
>Burgling a house where you know the owners are likely to be home,
>knowing that you may end up confronting them and not giving a toss is
>tantamount to home invasion, AFAIMC. We may also add:
>home invaders can easily ædiminish' into burglars if:[a]
>they know no-one is likely to be home anyway and [b]
>they can easily get what they want with a minimum of effort.
]Yes, but as said before, they usually need/want the occupant to be home.
Perhaps...in a strict and narrow definition of ‘home invasion'/qualified:
for the purpose of getting owners to open a safe! But: a burglar who
turns ‘aggravated burglar' could just as easily make the same demands...so:
we're back where we started.....!
>>A 'burglar' may _well_ have one also...maybe less likely than
>>the armed bandit but certainly a definite possibility...._too_
>>definite to pussy-foot around with the friggin' jerk!
>
>]Who's pussy footing?
>
>YOU are...if you treat a psychotic
]Assumption.
I wish it was!
> schmuck wandering around
>yr living-room/bed-room at 3a.m. as just someone who
>has accidentally strayed into the wrong house..."ooopss!
>Sorry, sir....I was looking for Mrs Bloggs' house!"
]Why, pray tell, would I have a gun aimed at them then?
Well..for a start....you most likely wouldn't because, by the time
you had woken up, got out of bed, found the key to the gun cabinet/safe,
put the bolt in the rifle and started loading it....it would all be too
late.
You'd either be seriously injured or dead! Tough titties!
>]Funny, the case I cited before (with gun owner shooting kid who breaks
>]through glass door) was committed in a low light setting with a high
>powered
>]bolt action rifle.
>
>Really? Perhaps the owner wasn't complying with the storage
>requirements then? (Naughty, naughty....!)
]No, he did comply, which is why his case was so strong.
Wellll...doubt if it would have made much dffrnc with a jury...but....
>Was the owner: an invalid, old age pensioner,
>female? Experienced gun owner? Was the incident pre- or post-
>Gun Grab?
>So many questions, so few answers......!
]He was a professional marksmen apparently, which actually went against him
](he should have shot to maim).
Such is life......
>]All of these people are better off with a pistol, aren't they?! The
pistol
>]is SA, but also much lighter.
>
>Guess they can just hop, skip and jump down to the local hardware store
>and buy one, no problemos!?
>DAMN! Why didn't I think of that?
>Ooppps......is this Arizona, Texas, Wyoming?
>SHIT! It's Oz! No WONDER I haven't got me 475 Wildey Auto-Mag ready
>and waiting! DRAT!
]Stop crying, there's no reason you cannot go and buy a pistol unless
there's
]something wrong with you.
Sure there is. Ever heard of AVOs?[Apprehended Violence Orders]
Thatz where someone's missus goes and makes a baseless allegation based on
nothing more than hot air and you end up losing yr guns! Or even where a
‘neighbour'
makes such an allegation....or someone across the other side of the world
rckns u sent
them a ‘threatening ‘ email(don't laugh! That has actually happened in
Victoria.....
The bloke lost his entire collection! This time 2002 he just might get them
back!)
>]HAHA You're a militia wannabee aren't ya! "Marxist maggots." Please!
>The Gun Grabbers have clear connections with the UN.
]As do most civilised countries.
Nominal membership is different from being involved in UN-sponsored
gun-grabbing exercises.....see here: http://www.ssaa.org.au/un5.html.
> The UN has
>a strong Marxist bias.
]Militia have strong KKK bias.
Nope they don't.
(Ok...some might! But I'd trust a KKKer before a
Marxist maggot any day of the week!)
> Marxists are murderers.
]KKK are murders.
Maybe....but Marxists have brutally exterminated nearly
150 million people this century?
How many have the KKK wiped out?
A hundred? A thousand? More like a few dozen, I'd say!
> Murderers are maggots!
>Hence, Marxists are maggots!
>Get it?!
]BTW, what true Marxist murdered? They were Stalinists. Stalin was into
]violence, but that wasn't part of Marx's ideads, was it?
Lenin. Trotsky. Mao(and their henchmen). Want me to go on?
>>Nope! The penalties for possessing (unlicensed) SAs were eff' all! They've
>>been increased significantly! They are now proscribed weapons!
>
>]No... for storage.
>
>Sorry.....are centre-fire semi-autos(or even rim-fire semi autos) now legal
>to own? Must have missed that one!
]*sigh* You missed the point... I wasn't disagreeing with you about that.
]Anyway...
>>All penalties associated with firearms have now been increased.
>>We may also mention the fact that even the cops are _different_
>>today...there are many more 19-yr old politically correct punks and
>>20-yr old femi-Nazis then there previously were! Most, if not all,
>>of the old style cops(who exercised a certain amount of give-and-take)
>>are gone, replaced by these FREAKS!
>]The average *entry level* age of a police officer is 27 in QLD. Remember
>]the old style cops are the ones in charge still, as the new cops are still
>]filling in the lower ranks. Not that you'd care, as they're simply the
>]executive arm of the "marxist maggots" anyway.
>
>Not in Victoria. And I _was_ talking about Victoria(and, NSW, if you like!)
]As if you'd know.
...sure I would. Seeing as how I know people who live there.....
>And if a guvmint is run by marxists,then they are maggots...why?
>Because marxists are maggots! U'v got plenty up in Qlnsnd.
>But, then, you bananna benders were always a bit sloooowwww on
>the uptake. Thatz why u'v always needed us Vics to run the
>friggin' joint for yez! Guess the likes of Peter Beatme is
>just a good ol' boy, huh?Have a look at some of yr other ægood ol' boys'
right here.....
>http://lockstockandbarrel.org/Documents/HOUSE-GARDEN.htm.
]You okay?
Just fine thnx! And u? Howz it feel living in a state run by
a bunch of scum?
>]Guess what profession I'm going into after working overseas? ;)
>
>Sorry...u musta mistaken me for someone who gives a RAT's ARSE!
]Well if I was cow branding you would.
Yeah..well.....I gave up running in a herd long ago!
(About the time I jumped on the ‘Net.....1995, I think it wuz!!)
>]Then you musn't be to keen on saving your skin. I mean, if you want to
>]shoot someone in your home, a pistol is a good way to do so. Seeing the
>]bolt action rifle is awkward for such a situation, why not buy a pistol?
>Or
>]are you just whinging for no reason, and not really interested on getting
a
>]gun for home protection?
>
>I'v explained all that above. The requirements for owning pistols in
>Victoria are onerous and time-consuming. I also do not feel
>like complying with their bureaucratic bullshit and going to
>all that trouble to have the friggin' thing taken off me on some
>copper's WHIM!
]God you're a dickhead.
]"Oh no, it takes too long, booo hoo hoo".
]"Oh no, I have to fill out forms, booo hoo hoo."
]How many cops live at your home? None? Well that's how high the chance is
]for your gun being taken away. or do you think a cop will drop by one day
]and say, Hmmm, I might relieve this guy of his gun.
Well....I guess you never heard of all those little caveats on the Vic gun
laws, then?
AVOs, ‘stalking'[whatever the hell that is], anonymous complaints &c?
>]Yeah, that massive gun owner population will just hammer the Government.
>We
>]have virtually no voice, and whenever we do get a voice, they give us a
>]redneck spokesperson who all the latte drinkers think are "bad type right
>]wingers". So we're fucked.
>
>U had 11 One Nation members elected in Queensland in 1998 partly on the
>strength of the æpro-gun' vote.
]Oh yeah, we can attribute all 11% to gun owners. I certainly did not vote
]for one nation, as even if they did favour semi-auto rifles, they a) only
]did it for cheap votes, and b) couldn't run their own party, let alone the
]State.
The reason they ‘couldn`t run their own party' was because it was sabotaged
from within by wankers like David Ettridge..since gone!
Thatz why they started a new party(City Country Alliance).
I suggest you check out this web site(http://anotdnews.tripod.com. If u
wanna even
have a semblance of someone who knows wot the hell they're talking about!)
So, unless you voted Independent, that
means that you voted either National, Liberal or Labor(or Democrat!)
IOW: yr a LABORAL supporter! And you wanna sit there in front of yr
‘puda and protest:"but I'm not PC" Methinks he doth protest TOO MUCH!
> The proof of that is in the private members'
>Bill that was tabled in the Queensland Parliament shortly thereafter(and
>defeated
>because the Libs sided with Labor against it)
>U also have the savaging Howard received at the Federal election(again
>due largely to One Nation prefernces going to Labor[whose primary vote
>hardly moved])
>Finally, you have the DRUBBING jeff.com received in Victoria...where there
>are BIG HEAPS of dis-affected gun owners and where three(in fact, almost
>FIVE)
>independents were elected on the strength of the pro-gun vote!
>As for æred-neck' spokesmen: maybe u need a few. The old fossils that
>constituted the old guard at SSAA haven't achieved a hell of a lot!
>Most people want guns now for SELF-PROTECTION! Not to shoot ducks or
>clay pigeons! They want SELF-PROTECTION against rampaging THUGs!
]You know what the polls were at the time, before the gun grab? Like 70-80%
]in favour of the gun grab laws. People don't like guns if the know nothing
]about them.
Crap! That wuz all media BULLSHIT! They rang up 100 or so people
and asked them loaded questions and rckn thatz a ‘poll' PLEASE!
There was 250000 people demonstrated in Mlbrn against the new
Gun Grab Laws..there was less than 15000 demonstrated for them....
Therez yr ratio......more than 10-to-1
>>>> and is ideal
>>>>for old-age pensioners, invalids or single mums.....the people who
>>>>MOST need them NOW!
>>
>>>A pistol is even more ideal.
>>
>>and much harder to get a licence for......
>
>]Have you tried?
>
>I don't have to...I know what the requirements are in Victoria.
>It's all in writing.....those requirements aren't going to magically
>disappear when you make an application...!
]What requirements do you not satisfy?
The ones that say yr guns can be taken off u for a 1001 different bullshit
excuses!
>>and much harder to
>>meet the storage requirements.....
>
>]They're sensible requirements if you have kids around the home.
>
>They're BULLSHIT requirements...like all gun laws....BULL_SHIT_!
]And that's why people dislike gun owners, because of morons like you.
And that's why we've got Gun Grab laws...because of media-brainwashed
schmucks like u who go along with every bit of CRAP Big Brother tells
‘em!
>>and much easier to lose
>>for some slight violation of the many restrictions......&c!
>
>]And how would one be caught for one of those?
>
>Anything from looking at the missus funny one morning over the
>Corn Flakes to one of the neighbours' thinking yr acting a bit funny....!
]So, you mean, there's no real way you'd be caught.
No: I mean therez a 1001 ways u can lose yr guns.
>]Oh, so you're using my comebacks on me?
>
>U reap wot u sow!
]Right, or you just lack wit or creativity.
Sure thing, Shakespeare!
>]But that doesn't work jimbo, because you're the only one citing
>sensationalist
>]dribble, "every robbers a drug fucked psycho, itching to bleed you dry"
etc
>etc.
>
>No sensationalist dribble[sic] around here, BUCKO...not
>from my side of the fence, anyway....just facts, FACTS and _FACTS_!
]And delusion...
Yep...yr deluded all right!
>]Why am I buying a Glock 22 then, you moron?
>I don't know and I don't care, _champ_! But I _do_ know one thing....
>U didn't put æhome protection' on yr application form....
]Of course not, what dickhead would do that?
A truthful one?
>Because, if you did, you sure as hell _wouldn't_ be buying one!
]Ah okay, so you saw guns in the Matrix and went, "Cool!". And that's about
]all you know...
Well..._U_ certainly don't seem to know much, judging by the tripe u'v
been wasting my time with over the last few days.....
]What exactly is wrong with a Glock 22 (.40 S&W)?
The same thing thatz wrong with any gun these days.....
not worth having if it can be taken off u five minutes later!
>When that happens, _then_ I will
>go out and get _another_ one!
]You musn't really want one then.
Not under the current bureaucratic bullshit I dont!
>]You just seem to have nothing better to do that make yourself look like a
>]twat with little southern drawl accents, anti-government lunacies, and
>]anti-responsibility statements.
>
>I do it to annoy all the politically correct pricks out there on USENET!
>I seem to be succeding reasonably well!
]You mean you want to be a little American farm boy?
Nope...it means I like seeing PC schmucks SQUIRM!
>]Ooooooooooooh, this gets better every time... so first "YOU HAVE
>]experience," then we find out it's NOT first hand experience (you know
>]someone it happened to), and then you try and say, "IT'S AS GOOD AS first
>]hand experience".
>
>Someone getting stabbed to death a few yards from you is just
>another one of those æeveryday ho-hum! type events' is it?
]A few yards now, so you saw it happen? What did you do?
Wadda rckn I did?
> I'v witnessed violent crime(including armed robberies!)
>At _close_ range. I was even a police witness in one.
]What about airplane hyjackings? Did you kill all the terrorists with your
]bare hands?
Did you bore them to death with your bullshit?
>>.....and a much more costly one. I'll take a .22 semi-auto any day thnx!
>
>]You didn't take any gun at all! If you need a semi-auto rifle to defend
>]yourself, and no other gun will do, there's something very wrong with you.
>
>Sorry...I think I _do_ need a .22 semi-auto to defend meself from
>psycho-thugs!
]If they're drugged out, you'd be lucky to stop one with a .22! Oh and it
]has to be a rifle, because why? You're a shit aim with a pistol? I just
]don't get it... in fact, there's nothing to get except irrational bullshit.
Two or three quick shots from a .22 semi-auto will stop most thugs...
If the appropriate ammo is used. Ok: letz make that a .22MAGNUM
semi-auto, jes' to be on the safe side! Get that?!
> Since I haven't got a black belt in martial arts,
>I'd say it would be ideal!
]That helps, what style?
Punch-their-friggin'-lights-out style!
>]What did the people -you know- do about the thugs? Or does everyone you
>]know in your neighbourhood only defend themselves with a .22 semiauto
>rifle?
>
>_they_didn't_have_guns_to_do_it_with_because_of_the_1996_Gun_Grab_!
>Sooo....u know wot they did? They haddta put up with being bashed and
>robbed!
>And then make a statement to the cops(when they finally arrived about an
>hour later!)
]I thought you were only a few yards away. Did you just stand there and
]watch?
Oh.hh...didnachaknow? I took on the three of ‘em with me bare hands!
Geeezzzz..........
>>I see. What are we supposed to do with them? Discuss the weather?
>
>]Err no, keep them out?
>
>Sure......if u can afford the $5000+ for the features. If u can't...TOUGH.
>Guess yr
>gunna hafta try and discuss sweet nothings with a psycho-thug!
]Then you have a gun aimed at them.
U should be so lucky....
>>]I don't know, YOU tell me. You're the one who installed security
screens.
>
>They were already installed by the owner of the flat.
]Lucky you.
U pay yr money, u take ya chances.....
>]What??????? I don't know one person who owns a gun, and I know more than
4
>]people. That's pretty fucken unlikely.
>
>Well.....unlikely or not...those are the figures. _PRE_-Gun Grab, of
course.
>Let's just give ya a fer instance. There were an estimated 850000 SKSs
>and SKKs imprtd into Oz from China over the period 1978-1990(Fisher
>Firearms,
>Sth Aust, if I'm not much mistaken!).
>Guess how many were handed in at the Gun Grab?
>Virtually NONE.....(i.e: less than 20000) Wonder where they
>all are? Hmmmmm........? And, of course, we've got all the other types of
>SAs of which
>hardly any were handed in too.....SLRs, Mini-14s, M1Crbns,Stirling
semi-auto
>.22s, &c
>Now, I wonder where all _they_ are? The mind boggles!
]Exactly, most of these gun owned more than one gun! Or are you going to
]tell me that of 18 million people, 4.5 million owned guns? There would
have
]been 4.5 million guns out there, but not 4.5 million gun OWNERs.
Whatever u like.......the fact remains there are several million
unaccounted for ‘proscribed guns' still out there in the community
somewhere. Guess they don't trust their guvmint...wonder why?
>Then, we'll end up like the Japs....
>NO private gun ownership and crims armed to the teeth!
>Welcome to the Brave New World of the Gun Grabberz!
]Tokyo had something like 11 murders with a firearm last year.
Check the other post on that.......
>]Only if he advances does he give up that chance. The other two options do
>]not require firing your weapon.
>
>They do for me.........then again, I'v seen thugs at first hand.
>Unlike U!
]Ah, so now, like I said, you want to shoot anything in your house (because
]BEING there is a threat).
Uninvited at 3a.m. it usually is!
>]Why would you be punching anyone of you have a gun aimed at them?
>
>Guess thatz all you would be doin', if u didn't have one, wouldncha?
]So how's it relevant?
How do ya rckn?
>]Sure, if you're being attacked. But you want to shoot them regardless.
>]It's both cowardly and immature (I used to think the same as a teenager).
>
>Who carez?
]Well that sums up my argument. I didn't assume you were a coward or
]immature, but if you're outrightly admitting to it, there's no point
]continuing eh?
.....Especially when you haven't got an argument to start with...and you
haven't had one since the word G-O here, pal!
>>> I can even quote the Bible verse on that:
>>"If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall
>>no blood be shed for him" [Exodus 22:2]
>
>]There's a great place to quote from; one of the biggest pieces of fiction
>]messed up with ancient laws (2000+ years) from the middle east!
>
>Nevertheless, a more inspiring source than a bunch of corrupt, scumbag
>pollies!
]I guess you should actually read the bible - which shows how corrupt
pollies
]back then were too.
Surprise! Surprise!
>And the same piece of fiction that's formed the basis for all our
>laws,
]Very much a "basis" only, as we've evolved a fair bit since then.
Ohh yeah? Guess when it ‘evolves' into "murder is Ok" that will be
just fine and dandy, rite?
>morals
]The morals aren't fiction now are they? The stories which bring them about
]are... but it's good if it teaches people basic morals.
If the stories are only that...stories...then the morals haven't any
real basis have they? The point is, however, that the latest
archaeological evidence suggests quite strongly that they are a
hell of a lot more real than ‘stories'
>and ethics for the last several hundred years.
>Perhaps they're fiction too?
>Funny about that, though....they seem to be digging up stuff around
>that neck of the woods(Middle East) all the time that makes that fiction
>look
>suspiciously like FACT!(...or is that 'faction'?!)
]OMG... maybe you should pick up a book or two. Nearly every "miracle" or
]strange happening coincides with Jewish holidays, and seeing they were
]written by Jews, they had special meanings which were interpreted as
gospel,
]but silly westerners. But then a lot of people already realise they are
]merely stories.
Sorry...most of the stuff in the Bible is intended to be taken as literal
historical fact. The ‘meanings' are quite clear, as most
theologians will tell you! The Bible wasn't written in an
unknown and indecipherable language you know
<snip!>
>There are plenty of educated people who aren't politically correct,
>femi-nazi, latte-drinking,chardonnay-swilling, intellectual elite pinhead
>pinkos!
]You don't like chardonnay?
...just the type of people who usually drink it!
>]If the law allowed it, would you simply shoot at anyone illegally
>]tresspassing on your property without warning, or without seeing if they
>]will surrender or be allowed to flee?
>
>Nope...but i'd sure as hell shoot at someone floating around
>me bedroom at 3a.m., who wouldn't agree to wait for the cops....its
>called SELF-DEFENCE!
]Someone has to attack you before you are defending yourself. If they are
at
]distance or fleeing, you're not defending yourself.
Being in the same room as you ain't ‘a distance';
‘fleeing' is running down the street...not floating around yr
bed-room at 3a.m.
]HEY JIM, WANT ME TO TYPE IT AGAIN FOR YOU?
WILL IT HELP YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YR TALKING SHIT?!
<snipped it!>
>]Well no, the peasants were given arms when they joined the nationalist or
>]communist armies.
>
>....and anyone who didn't(or didn't agree with Marxist Maggots!, or anyone
>they
>æsuspected' of not agreeing with them)
>Was lined up against a wall and...........(fill in the blanx, Glock Boy!)
]Err no. If you knew anything about the era, you'd know the Communists used
]agrarian politics, and because the people liked their ideas, they joined
the
]Communist's side. The done thing was to send one or two men into a town to
]show the peasantry how the systems would work.
Who taught that you crap? Yr politically correct, femi-nazi teachers?
Ever heard of the Kulaks?
]BTW, do you think the Nationalists were nice? They were corrupt right
]through, which is why they lost support.
.....no: they lost support because certain foreign banks funded the
Bolsheviks from the word GO. The Bolshies had virtually no support to
start with. Look up the name: Edward Mandell House
]The Maoists (not Marxists you twit), were popular to begin with. It is
]later on that they became quite evil.
They were _destined_ to become evil, operating from the set of
bullshit premisses that they did. Strange that, isn't it?
All these commies supposedly ‘started off good' and then
came a cropper! Must be the nature of the beast!
>]What, corrupt? ;)
>
>nahhh..they've bin corrupt in Oz since the Rum Rebellion.
>I'm talkin' about femi-nazis and politically correct punks being
>issued with uniforms, badges, heavy calibre handguns and a licence to kill!
]Err, you talk to any young cops lately? Not much of that going round...
No? They had a whole big inquiry on it right here in Victoria only a few
years ago.
It was called ‘The Police Shootings Inquiry'
Thatz wot happens when you get rid of all the old, mature, experienced cops
and
replace them with a bunch of femi-nazis and politically correct thugs!
Chris G
jimbo wrote in message <38fa...@news.alphalink.com.au>...
>>>>
>>>>http://www.gunfree.org/csgv/intchart.htm
>>>
>>>...an excellently objective source. About as credible as
>>>a Mickey Mouse comic!
>>
>>As credible as your sources. Again, you've most likely never been to
Japan
>>or know anyone who has lived there. When you do find someone, ask them
>what
>>they think of the absence of violent crime, and of street crime
>>(particularly the latter).
>
>The sources I quote use facts and evidence
They very well may, but they have NOTHING to do with the figures I quoted.
They're also heavily biased.
> Yours dont...thatz the
>difference!
>(or they cite flawed studies like the Kellerman study!)
No, Jimbo, you're just denying a simple table of real numbers.
>
><snip>
>
>>If you could even read the media, you'd realise they are never stuck on
one
>>side of the fence as far as guns are concerned. They side with whatever
>>makes better news, but because of idiots like you, they often give
shooters
>>a bad name.
>
>And itz because of idiots like u that we now have the Gun Grab Laws
No, Jimbo, the blame is on the moronics who give gun owner's that lunatic
stereotype. And it's the noisy little fucks like you that cause us all the
trouble.
>
>>>Now you know why I am apt to hang the PC label on _u_:
>>>u more or less merit it(or, at least, qualify for 'honorary membership!)
>
>>No, I still don't think you grasp the concept. If I was truly PC, would I
>>continually use sexist references to a person by saying him or he and not
>>him/her or he/she?
>
>big deal. Yr thinking's PC. Are you in fact a gun owner or just a friggin'
>TROLL? You wouldn't be so keen to criticise the SSAA if u were!
>(especially when they've backed their stuff up...unlike yr crap!)
The SSAA are like any other interest group, they have to be biased (just
like anti-gun people) otherwise their supporters wouldn't support them. The
unfortunate reality is "interest groups" get out of hand with political
activists or ravers like you (or anti-gun loons) starting putting all their
effort in to be irrational, so the groups get dodgey followings.
>
>>>Check these for the true situation in Japan:
>>>http://www.ozemail.com.au/~confiles/overseas.html#10.
>>>http://www.ssaa.org.au/crab5.html.
>
>>Jimbo, neither of your sites disprove the above. One talks about
organised
>>crime, and the other about suicides. One is from the SSAA (if you want to
>>talk about Mickey Mouse, here you go for biases), and the other preaching
>>the Safety Con. What were you saying about objective?
>
>....sorry: u must not have read the material properly.
I've read it Jimbo, they have no real figures to disprove mine. Until you
find some, you lose.
>Here it is agin for u:
>****************************************
>Japanese police understate the amount of crime,
>particularly covering up the problem of organised
>crime, in order to appear more efficient and
>worthy of the respect the citizens have for the police.
>****************************************
>
>What have u got to disprove that? Or the Japanese Government material about
>handguns? Put up, or shut up, schmuck!
This is someone'a arse-umption, which is about as valid as the psychic
hotline. If some other fool says "The Japanese are not lying" on a webpage,
is that worth quoting? No. So you're still to come up with any proof
discredit to the real figures.
>
>>You just don't like the figures because it disproves your horseshit.
>
>Yr the only horseshitter around here, schmuck!
>
>>America (1995) 13.7%
>>Australia (1994) 3.05%
>>Japan (1995) 0.07%
>
>(understated by 10%?)
Three numbers. Three countries. Read it. Not too hard is it?
>
>>Not hard to work out, eh? Personally I prefer what we have in Australia to
>a
>>complete ban like Japan, however, I'd like to see semi-automatic rifles be
>>reintroduced but with more restrictions on the owners.
>
>U could have fooled me.......!
Yes, that's be a real feat, wouldn't it?
>
>>Letting anyone to a gun? No way... we don't let anyone to a car, and even
>a
>>driver's licence should be harder to obtain (considering so many people
>find
>>it hard to use a bloody roundabout!).
>
>Sorry....am I restricted from buying certain types of cars, if I have the
>money?
You are restricted in a) your ability to use one, as you must hold a
licence, and b) in the way you can use your car (ie. speeding etc.).
>Come to think of it....if I am over 18, can I not buy _any_ care that
>strikes my fancy(if I can afford it)?
Ever heard of a TVR Speed 12? You cannot buy that without intensive
training. Come to think of it, you can't put any real race car on the road.
> Even if I _haven't_ got a licence....
You cannot use it without a licence.
>I may not be able to drive it on the road, but I _can_ drive it on a
private
>property!
>Get a better analogy, clown!
What's this got to do with my analogy? It's not going to be exactly the
same, is it? The analogy still serves it's purpose, you just don't like it.
>
>> You're a whinger, Jimbo.
>
>..and yr a schmuck!
>
>>If you really wanted a gun, you'd go and get one.
>
>sure i could..._if_ I done it illegally. But i have this little
>fetish of abiding by the law of the land. If I don't like it,
>I try to contribute to changing it!
Funny that, there are a whole lot of people who own guns legally in
Australia. What's your excuse?
Chris
Chris G
>incidental/minuscule. Compared to the virtual non-existence of such
>crimes in the 1950s, we are now CHOCK-A-BLOCK with them.
>If we got much more, we'd be _OVERFLOWING_
>Get it?!
Oh, so now you admit the incidence of such crimes in miniscule. Great. I
don't have the crime levels for 1950 on hand but generally, as populations
grow, so does crime.
>>Look again. If you can't understand figure comparisons....perhaps
>>a graph might help?
>>(http://www.ssaa.org.au/Doc24.htm.)
>
>]What's wrong, not happy with the ABS figures?
>
>Quite happy. I'm _unhappy_ with yr bodgie interpretation of them, is all!
But I agreed with your ABS figures... armed robbery has increased
dramatically. Unfortunately, that is not within the realms of this thread
as it clearly states these are personal crimes, not property crimes.
>
>]Second thing... notice the curve before the gun buy back scheme? It's
>]exactly the same. Stupid!
>
>Itz the curve _after_ the Gun Grab thatz important....notice the steep
>increase?
>It couldn't be plainer! Sheezzzzz....didn't u do ‘graphs' at school? Did
>you, in fact,
>go to school at all?!
Don't try and run away by pretending to miss my point, you know exactly what
I mean. The graph pre gun grab has a curver IDENTICAL to the curve after
the gun grab. The gun grab did NOTHING to that graph's ROI.
>
>]DUH! Look at your graph. The rate of increase has not budged, has it?
>
>Have you got a vision prblm or something? There is
>a _clear_ increase....quite a steep one, in fact!
Go and look again! 1/3 of the way up is gun grab. Do you know what an
equal rate of increase is? It means, the rate of increasing crimes is
EXACTLY THE SAME before and after the gun grab. The graph even shows you
where gun grab is! For fuck's sake!
>>Recorded crimes with a weapon in Victoria:
>>Year: 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 (half year)
>>Firearm
>> 447 372 473 485 520 256
>
>]Slight decrease in last year (assuming final figure x 2).
>
>But look at the increase from 1994/95(pre-Gun Grab).....473 to, let's
>say, a final figure of 520 for 1998/99(it's probably much higher.....but
>we'll settle for no increase from the previous yr).
>That makes an _increase_ of almost 10%.
Then explain why 93/94 is nearly as high as 95/96? Also, what is the real
increase % taking into account population changes in Victoria?
>So: the most violent crime(with firearms) that the Gun Grab was
>‘intended' to prevent(actually, the likes of PM Howard never claimed that
>the community would be safer because of the Gun Grab anyway....
>http://www.ssaa.org.au/quoteozpm.html )
>has _increased_, if not substantially, at least significantly.
Duh, I know what he said. I know the gun grab was a complete political
sham.
>Rather odd, wouldncha say?
>
>>knife
>> 1289 868 748 1410 1853 943
>
>]No change...
>
>Half-year chump! That makes 1846 (or more) for the total
>868 to 1846 represents a whopping _increase_ of....113%
>OUCH!
No change to the year before.
Guns are not removed from the black market though.
>]I've got it wrong? I pasted from the ABS and gave you the page. Note the
>]change in mine is from 1993-1998. The rise is 0.6% of total households,
or
>]a 7.3% rise in the number of households robbed in 1993.
>
>A rise in the nmbr of households doesn't correlate 100% with the rise in
the
>number of
>burglaries.
It's a rise in the number of total households burgled.
>]For fuck's sake, Jimbo, the article specifically shows a split between
>]PERSONAL and PROPERTY crimes. So: 79% are there to steal, 21% want to
bash
>]your arse.
>
>Not necessarily. Without further qualification, we are not at liberty
>to make such a clear-cut distinction. There
>may _well_ be overlap involved here!
It has a clear-cut distinction. Read it.
>
>]PERSONAL crime, not PROPERTY.
>
>Wot the hell's a burglary then.....where the owner is at home?
Property crime. As indicated on the ABS page YOU gave me. You'd think
you'd at least bother to read it.
>
>>]I regard him as some punk on drugs who wants to flog all my nice gear to
>>buy
>>]more drugs.
>>
>>....and a dangerous punk at that.
>
>]Not most of the time, especially if you have a gun.
>
>Keep on believing that, schmuck....u might eventually convince
>yr-self!....until
>the day one of these psychos appears in yr bed-room at 3 a.m.
Yeh, whatever will I do with a gun trained on his chest? I know what I will
do, try not to UNECCESSARILY shoot the guy.
>
>]I've never heard anyone in Melbourne say they fear for their life, and
most
>]live in lower cost rented residences. Though one's loaded ;)
>
>Its the _area_, not how much they're paying for rent.
So then, you CAN move and that line before about low rental areas are all
shit was just more bullcrap.
>]LOL! I agree with this, so why are you telling me? Trying to evade the
>]above? If the population have more guns, why are more crims arming
>]themsevles? Threat has diminished. Availability of guns doesn't make
>crims
>]go and get more guns, it just makes them easier to get ig they want one.
>
>Well, for a start, you _can't_ be agreeing with me, can you?
>My claim is summed up thus: "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have
>guns"
Yes, Jimbo, I agree!
>*Crims can always get guns;
Yes.
>*They hardly ever get them from ‘regular' sources anyway;
Yes.
>*When the public is basically disarmed, that only leaves the crims with
>guns;
Yes.
>*When only the crims have guns, they are that much more bolder and brazener
>and
>all sorts of crime(including violent crime) increases...get the picture?
Meaning they do not need firearms, as their victims are less armed.
>"Availability of guns doesn't make crims go and
>get more guns,
>it just makes them easier to get ig they want one."(that is: reduce the
nmbr
>of guns in the
>community and the crims will have less guns too!)
That's not what "that is" at all. If there are MORE guns available to
criminals, and LESS guns available to the victims, the criminals DO NOT NEED
to use the excess guns because there is LESS RISK for them when they go to a
commit a break in.
Get it?
>
>]How am I anti-gun? I'm anti-idiot gun owners.
>
>U continually trot out anti-gun loon lines. Like: their should be
>substantial
>restrictions on firearms ownership
True.
> and less guns==less crime.
False.
>And, because there are ‘idiot gun owners' we should restrict guns?
Yes, to prevent known psychos or ex-crims from getting them legally.
>Does the same argument wash with cars? Motorbikes? Chain-saws?
>Skateboards?
It should. Car licences should be much harder to get and require defensive
driving courses.
>
>]Did you get your gun taken from you?
>
>I sold it before the Gun Grab. Post-Gun Grab, and with the new draconican
>restrictions,
>I couldn't be bothered re-applying(especially when they introduced a 10+ pg
>application form
>in Victoria)
Oh no, not a whole 10 pages! If it's too hard, fill out 1 page per day.
>
>>Pistols are difficult to get in Victr(legally, that is!) and involve a
>>substantial
>>waiting period,
>
>]Aren't the laws uniform now? That was the point of the centralised gun
>]laws. If you fear for your life, you can wait for the licence.
>
>Sorry...if you fear for yr life...you _can't_ wait weeks for a licence. You
>need
>a gun _quick_. Since I have extensive home security I am, mercifully,
spared
>that anxiety. Others are not so lucky!
LOL! So you're telling me the following:
- people can anticipate when they will be attacked
- it's better to not get one at all and be exposed forever to attack, than
wait several weeks and risk only a few weeks
I'm sorry that's the mosty non-logical thing you've said. Try again.
>
>]No shit, you put sports/hobby and join a gun club (which you should do
>]anyway).
>
>..yeah! But you shouldn't have to! ‘Self-protection' should be a valid
>reason for owning a firearm.
Well it isn't, so make do you whinger.
>]No, not in a threatening manner you liar. Your justification is that IF
>]they are IN YOUR HOUSE, then they are AUTOMATICALLY A THREAT (because they
>]don't care if you're there or not, and as you say, are all psychos). Are
>]you now backtracking and agreeing with me?
>
>I wouldn't agree with _u_ in a black and blue fit, champ!
I know, you were just try to weazel your way out.
>Sorry, shit-fa-brainz: if they're in yr bedroom at 3a.m: they're
>a threat.
Not necessarily.
> If they're _moving_ , they're a threat again!
Not necessarily.
>Unless they're sitting there nice and compliantly awaiting the cops,
>they're _moving in a threatening manner_!
Not necessarily.
>End of story!
Not necessarily.
>
>]This is true in some cases, I guess it depends where you live (ie. in one
>of
>]my old neighbourhood you had retirees watering their lawns all the time,
>too
>]much activity there for robbing in the day... we had a stretch of several
>]robberies in that street where the burglars lifted tiles of the roof and
>]came in through the roof at night).
>
>..whatever. An enterprising burglar will also check out the
>local surrondings and getaway routes(the more the better)
Yes, the smart ones will.
>
>]Home invasion never intends to use stealth. Aggravated burglary turns
>]agrravated when stealth fails (and are they types we are talking about).
>
>Nope! You missed one....an aggravated burglary can be where a burglar
>burgles a dwelling intending to take on the occupier,
That's a home invasion.
> if necessary...going
>in
>to a dwelling ready,willing and able to engage in a confrontation is pretty
>much the same as a home invasion.
>This putting ‘burglars' and ‘home invaders' in two different categories
>ain't
>gunna work, champ!
That's how it's done, unfortunately for you.
> Therez no such thing as the nice,polite ‘midnight
>visitor'
>these days..yr living in a time warp!
The ABS states 79% are intending/ending up to merely steal, the other 21%
are not. Meaning they are mostly non-violent midnight visitors.
> They're all psycho thugs
And there you lose your credibility (again)...
>....as
>evidenced by
>the frequent media stories concerning bashed-up old age pensioners.
Yes, these people are cowards, but it's not the norm. It's in the 21%
category.
>(There was a plague of ‘em a coupla years ago in an inner-Sydney suburb....
>Can't remember which one exactly...)
The media has a frenzy with different types of crimes in different periods.
They'll overly report on say, home invasions for a while, and thenstart
putting them back in the little "briefs" column when they think their
readership is sick of hearing about it.
>And some of the _bashers_ were less than 20yrs old....i.e: still
technically
>_teen-agers_. So much for the polite thief scenario!
That doesn't prove anything except you read some granny-basher articles. We
all know they exist, you just seem to think they're ALL like this. "They're
all psycho thugs".
>
>>]That's a really interesting opinion. I studied Journalism, and
>>]unfortunately for you, all local, metropolitan, regional and national
>>papers
>>]are considered mainstream
>>
>>by who? Local papers rely on the local community to keep going.
>
>]By their owners, by journalists. BTW, their news feeds come from national
>]papers and international news networks, otherwise, how do you think they
>]ever get stories outside of their town? It's not like they can employ
>]national corespondents.
>
>The vast bulk of material in local newspapers is just that...._local_
Read what I said again. National and international news. Of course the
rest is local.
>
>>]UNLESS they specify a certain bias, or write to a
>>]niche readership. Local papers are also considered (by Journalists
>anyway)
>>]to be tabloids.
>
>>Those wouldn't be the same journos who make up the
>>anti-gun loon brigade, would it?
>
>]Most journalists know shit-all about guns and have no interest in them.
>
>They may know ‘shit-all' about guns, but they sure as hell have an
>_interest_ in them....as evidenced by the SHIT they tipped on
>gun owners and shooters post-Prt Arthur. Or are u gunna
>actually deny that?
No, of course they did. It's newsworthy and gets people razzed up (like
you). So everyday, people like you and the anti-gun people go off and buy a
paper to see what's being said. You think they actually have something
personal against guns. Maybe the columnists do, but the rest are just
trying to impress the editor.
> Am I gunna have to start posting up some of
>the worthless bullshit yr neutral journos wrote in the major metros....
>U can chew on this while yr thinking about that......
>http://www.mrc.org/news/mediawatch/1997/mw19970701stud.html.
Oh, you think they actually care about our guns. They couldn't give a shit
if it wasn't giving them better readership.
>]LOL! They're DIFFERENT sets of figures. They may have increased by 8.5%,
>]but the increase of break ins in my figures were from 1993-1998 and the
>]total increase was 0.6% of TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS... not of those robbed in the
>]previous year. Do you get why they are different figures now?
>
>Already discussed above. We're talking about
_crimes_reported_to_the_police_
>Thatz all that counts here!
In your books, it's still recorded by the ABS, and still valid to the
thread.
>
>]I've acknowledged yours you twit! I even discussed them. You just
claimed
>]mine/ABS's were wrong!
>
>Nope....and i'v discussed it above. I _never_ claim ABS figures are wrong.
>(Unless therez very substantial evidence indeed to say so!)
>I can, however, query the spin people put on them.....
What spin? I merely quoted them.
>]Oh "good one Jimbo". You're re-using my comments, eh? We know you're the
>]one with the big imagination and large dose of low grade action flick
>script
>]writing which adversely affects the way you think a break in plays out.
>
>Ho hum! I guess all thug violence is just ‘B Grade movie scripts' and,
>hence,
>unreal by definition?!
Your take on real life is unreal
>]No, it doesn't even make sense in Oz. They still would not, if unaffected
>]by drugs, jump at you if you have a gun.
>
>same ol', same ol'.......
That's right, I have to keep saying it because you're twice as dense as the
average idiot.
>]So you'd let anyone over 18 have a gun of any type with few storage
>]requirements and no enforced training? That's a good way to fuck the
>]country up. Hey, then you won't have to move to the US, you can bring it
>]right on over to Australia.
>
>More or less.
Move to the US. Others don't want a replica US here. And if our social
problems get worse (I partially blame all the litigation crap parents and
teachers get hammered with, thus allowing their kids to grow up as
irresponsible no gooders!) widespread gun ownership could get bad for us.
> The point is, the gun laws we had pre-Gun Grab worked
>just fine!
Nearly. Why did mentally unstable types like Bryant have access to
firearms? The sensible thing that should have been done by the Government
was not the outrightly ban guns, but simply place tighter restrictions on
those allowed to own a gun. This is what I would like to see happen, with
the reintroduction of the guns we had taken from us.
> The fact that we are now in the middle of a crime-wave seems
>to indicate that the new ones may _not_ be working fine at all!
>As per the statistics I posted re: CC laws in the US, widespread
>gun ownership doesn't seem to FK anything up....it makes life quite
>liveable indeed! An armed society is a polite society!
I want those guns back, albeit under more restrictions, but what you're
saying isn't true. Gun ownership is fine, however, letting anyone buy a gun
allows the loons in, and then we have unstable fuckers using their legal
guns to mow down their family etc.
>>]b) why risk your livelihood when you can run off and try robbing another
>>]house in another neighbourhood?
>>
>>Because, being a drugged out psycho,
>
>]...rarely...
>
>Sorry...someone who regularly takes drugs and does burglaries to pay
>for them does not qualify as a ‘rational thinker' in my lexicon!
It's the only rational way to support the habbit. If they're not flogged
when they do the robbery, they're probably quite clear minded (especially if
they're heroin users... these people can live quite normal lives outside of
their drug habit).
>>anyway and, being a crim and a thug, you don't give two and a half
>>tosses about someone else's pain or discomfort AS LONG as YOU GET
>>WHAT YOU WANT!
>
>]But you didn't answer the question, did you.
>
>Sure I did
No, you missed it. Forget it.
>
>]I don't. And most robbers don't know of the safe. Usually the home
>invader
>]knows of the person they are robbing and their business.
>
>Most burglars always go looking for cash and jewellery though.
Yes.
>
>> schmuck wandering around
>>yr living-room/bed-room at 3a.m. as just someone who
>>has accidentally strayed into the wrong house..."ooopss!
>>Sorry, sir....I was looking for Mrs Bloggs' house!"
>
>]Why, pray tell, would I have a gun aimed at them then?
>
>Well..for a start....you most likely wouldn't because, by the time
>you had woken up, got out of bed, found the key to the gun cabinet/safe,
>put the bolt in the rifle
Pistol.
> and started loading it
Clip.
>....it would all be too
>late.
>You'd either be seriously injured or dead! Tough titties!
Then I wouldn't have confronted them in the first place. You would not
confront until you had the gun, and the above can be done in a pretty short
amount of time.
>
>]Stop crying, there's no reason you cannot go and buy a pistol unless
>there's
>]something wrong with you.
>
>Sure there is. Ever heard of AVOs?[Apprehended Violence Orders]
>Thatz where someone's missus goes and makes a baseless allegation based on
>nothing more than hot air and you end up losing yr guns! Or even where a
>‘neighbour'
>makes such an allegation....or someone across the other side of the world
>rckns u sent
>them a ‘threatening ‘ email(don't laugh! That has actually happened in
>Victoria.....
>The bloke lost his entire collection! This time 2002 he just might get them
>back!)
And this is stopping you buying a gun... well that's a stretch but hey.
>
>> The UN has
>>a strong Marxist bias.
>
>]Militia have strong KKK bias.
>
>Nope they don't.
>(Ok...some might! But I'd trust a KKKer before a
>Marxist maggot any day of the week!)
Marxists don't go killing people, dictators who pay lip service to Marxist
ideology do.
>
>> Marxists are murderers.
>
>]KKK are murders.
>
>Maybe....but Marxists have brutally exterminated nearly
>150 million people this century?
No, Marxists haven't done much killing. Communist Governments have done a
good deal of killing, but they've not really been Marxist, they've simply
part-modelled their economics on Marxist thought.
Your figure is also wrong. The figure is, in this century, all Governments
have killed 120 million people. You should know that, being an anti-govt.
type.
>How many have the KKK wiped out?
>A hundred? A thousand? More like a few dozen, I'd say!
How many would they like to wipe out? You can closely associate Neo-Nazi
acivity with these types anyway, and then the figure gets up there if you
include WW2's casualties. As bad as Communist dictators!
>
>> Murderers are maggots!
>>Hence, Marxists are maggots!
>>Get it?!
>
>]BTW, what true Marxist murdered? They were Stalinists. Stalin was into
>]violence, but that wasn't part of Marx's ideads, was it?
>
>Lenin. Trotsky. Mao(and their henchmen). Want me to go on?
Exactly. And early Maoism was actually good for the people of China. It
got bad for them later on (when 20 million starved!!).
>]You okay?
>
>Just fine thnx! And u? Howz it feel living in a state run by
>a bunch of scum?
You're a bit of a whacko aren't you? Come on, fess up.
>
>]God you're a dickhead.
>]"Oh no, it takes too long, booo hoo hoo".
>]"Oh no, I have to fill out forms, booo hoo hoo."
>
>]How many cops live at your home? None? Well that's how high the chance
is
>]for your gun being taken away. or do you think a cop will drop by one day
>]and say, Hmmm, I might relieve this guy of his gun.
>
>Well....I guess you never heard of all those little caveats on the Vic gun
>laws, then?
>AVOs, ‘stalking'[whatever the hell that is], anonymous complaints &c?
Yeh, I get them all the time, NOT!
>]Oh yeah, we can attribute all 11% to gun owners. I certainly did not vote
>]for one nation, as even if they did favour semi-auto rifles, they a) only
>]did it for cheap votes, and b) couldn't run their own party, let alone the
>]State.
>
>The reason they ‘couldn`t run their own party' was because it was sabotaged
>from within by wankers like David Ettridge..since gone!
>Thatz why they started a new party(City Country Alliance).
> I suggest you check out this web site(http://anotdnews.tripod.com. If u
>wanna even
>have a semblance of someone who knows wot the hell they're talking about!)
> So, unless you voted Independent, that
>means that you voted either National, Liberal or Labor(or Democrat!)
>IOW: yr a LABORAL supporter! And you wanna sit there in front of yr
>‘puda and protest:"but I'm not PC" Methinks he doth protest TOO MUCH!
I voted Liberal actually. What did you do, plan to blow up a polling booth?
>
>]You know what the polls were at the time, before the gun grab? Like
70-80%
>]in favour of the gun grab laws. People don't like guns if the know
nothing
>]about them.
>
>Crap! That wuz all media BULLSHIT!
All polls are dodgey, but 70-80% is a clear winner.
>There was 250000 people demonstrated in Mlbrn against the new
>Gun Grab Laws..there was less than 15000 demonstrated for them....
>Therez yr ratio......more than 10-to-1
You seriously take rally numbers as a true reflection of wider Australian
preferences? There are more gun owners then anti-gun loons! What did you
think would happen? Most people couldn't give a fuck if guns were banned.
Everyone I talked to, (except my friend and I) thought the gun laws were
reasonable!
>
>]What requirements do you not satisfy?
>
>The ones that say yr guns can be taken off u for a 1001 different bullshit
>excuses!
Are you likely to annoy that many people?
>
>]And that's why people dislike gun owners, because of morons like you.
>
>And that's why we've got Gun Grab laws...because of media-brainwashed
>schmucks like u who go along with every bit of CRAP Big Brother tells
>‘em!
But I don't you toss, which makes you look kind of silly, doesn't it!? I
was never happy with the gun laws being introduced, but then I couldn't
believe the Medical Association of Australia (GPs etc.) did not warn anyone
about Bryant when they knew he had guns, and he was on medication. They
were at fault! There needs to be mechanisms in place to stop unstable
people getting access to guns.
>>]Why am I buying a Glock 22 then, you moron?
>>I don't know and I don't care, _champ_! But I _do_ know one thing....
>>U didn't put æhome protection' on yr application form....
>
>]Of course not, what dickhead would do that?
>
>A truthful one?
Someone who didn't want a gun. And anyway, my main purpose is that of
target practice.
>
>>Because, if you did, you sure as hell _wouldn't_ be buying one!
>
>]Ah okay, so you saw guns in the Matrix and went, "Cool!". And that's
about
>]all you know...
>
>Well..._U_ certainly don't seem to know much, judging by the tripe u'v
>been wasting my time with over the last few days.....
Owning a gun isn't a political statement. It's a sport/hobby and will later
be part of my profession. I don't start quoting the American constitution
as soon as I buy one.
>
>]What exactly is wrong with a Glock 22 (.40 S&W)?
>
>The same thing thatz wrong with any gun these days.....
>not worth having if it can be taken off u five minutes later!
Blah blah... don't go annoy people then.
>]You mean you want to be a little American farm boy?
>
>Nope...it means I like seeing PC schmucks SQUIRM!
You should do a homeboy impersonation then, that'd piss me off more.
>
>>]Ooooooooooooh, this gets better every time... so first "YOU HAVE
>>]experience," then we find out it's NOT first hand experience (you know
>>]someone it happened to), and then you try and say, "IT'S AS GOOD AS first
>>]hand experience".
>>
>>Someone getting stabbed to death a few yards from you is just
>>another one of those æeveryday ho-hum! type events' is it?
>
>]A few yards now, so you saw it happen? What did you do?
>
>Wadda rckn I did?
Not much seeing you said you didn't have 1st hand experience... you just
know of someone who had 1st hand experience.
>
>> I'v witnessed violent crime(including armed robberies!)
>>At _close_ range. I was even a police witness in one.
>
>]What about airplane hyjackings? Did you kill all the terrorists with your
>]bare hands?
>
>Did you bore them to death with your bullshit?
I wasn't there, so no... but you were.
>]If they're drugged out, you'd be lucky to stop one with a .22! Oh and it
>]has to be a rifle, because why? You're a shit aim with a pistol? I just
>]don't get it... in fact, there's nothing to get except irrational
bullshit.
>
>Two or three quick shots from a .22 semi-auto will stop most thugs...
Un-drugged.
>If the appropriate ammo is used. Ok: letz make that a .22MAGNUM
>semi-auto, jes' to be on the safe side! Get that?!
>
>> Since I haven't got a black belt in martial arts,
>>I'd say it would be ideal!
>
>]That helps, what style?
>
>Punch-their-friggin'-lights-out style!
Oh, so you were just kidding?
>>
>>Sure......if u can afford the $5000+ for the features. If u can't...TOUGH.
>>Guess yr
>>gunna hafta try and discuss sweet nothings with a psycho-thug!
>
>]Then you have a gun aimed at them.
>
>U should be so lucky....
It's not lucky, go and get one.
>]Exactly, most of these gun owned more than one gun! Or are you going to
>]tell me that of 18 million people, 4.5 million owned guns? There would
>have
>]been 4.5 million guns out there, but not 4.5 million gun OWNERs.
>
>Whatever u like.......the fact remains there are several million
>unaccounted for ‘proscribed guns' still out there in the community
>somewhere. Guess they don't trust their guvmint...wonder why?
It's not about trust all of the time. It's about, fuck you, I want to keep
this gun.
>
>>Then, we'll end up like the Japs....
>>NO private gun ownership and crims armed to the teeth!
>>Welcome to the Brave New World of the Gun Grabberz!
>
>]Tokyo had something like 11 murders with a firearm last year.
>
>Check the other post on that.......
Yeh, the best you could reply with was, "Those figures are false!".
>
>]Well that sums up my argument. I didn't assume you were a coward or
>]immature, but if you're outrightly admitting to it, there's no point
>]continuing eh?
>
>.....Especially when you haven't got an argument to start with...and you
>haven't had one since the word G-O here, pal!
So what are you doing here then?
>
>]I guess you should actually read the bible - which shows how corrupt
>pollies
>]back then were too.
>
>Surprise! Surprise!
>
>>And the same piece of fiction that's formed the basis for all our
>>laws,
>
>]Very much a "basis" only, as we've evolved a fair bit since then.
>
>Ohh yeah? Guess when it ‘evolves' into "murder is Ok" that will be
>just fine and dandy, rite?
What's this blabber?
>
>>morals
>
>]The morals aren't fiction now are they? The stories which bring them
about
>]are... but it's good if it teaches people basic morals.
>
>If the stories are only that...stories...then the morals haven't any
>real basis have they?
Of course they do. They're called parrabels. Stories which teach people a
lesson.
> The point is, however, that the latest
>archaeological evidence suggests quite strongly that they are a
>hell of a lot more real than ‘stories'
The latest archaeological evidence is something you wouldn't have a clue
about.
>
>>and ethics for the last several hundred years.
>>Perhaps they're fiction too?
>>Funny about that, though....they seem to be digging up stuff around
>>that neck of the woods(Middle East) all the time that makes that fiction
>>look
>>suspiciously like FACT!(...or is that 'faction'?!)
>
>]OMG... maybe you should pick up a book or two. Nearly every "miracle" or
>]strange happening coincides with Jewish holidays, and seeing they were
>]written by Jews, they had special meanings which were interpreted as
>gospel,
>]but silly westerners. But then a lot of people already realise they are
>]merely stories.
>
>Sorry...most of the stuff in the Bible is intended to be taken as literal
>historical fact.
Ugh. It's a religious interpretation of events. The people who take it as
fact are called fundamentalists, and IMO, are fairly simple minded. As long
as they live out good lives, I don't really care.
> The ‘meanings' are quite clear, as most
>theologians will tell you!
Yes, they are.
> The Bible wasn't written in an
>unknown and indecipherable language you know
The meanings are clear. The symbolism, miracles, "God said" bits, and other
phenomena are superstitions and fabricated stories intended to teach.
Anyway, you're entitled to your faith. It's not my place to question your
beliefs, but don't expect me to take your literal interpretations of the
bible seriously, because I cannot.
>
><snip!>
>>There are plenty of educated people who aren't politically correct,
>>femi-nazi, latte-drinking,chardonnay-swilling, intellectual elite pinhead
>>pinkos!
>
>]You don't like chardonnay?
>
>...just the type of people who usually drink it!
So you never have a glass of chardonnay? Poor bastard! I have some cheap
shit in the fridge, goes down well with a bowl of chips!
>]Err no. If you knew anything about the era, you'd know the Communists
used
>]agrarian politics, and because the people liked their ideas, they joined
>the
>]Communist's side. The done thing was to send one or two men into a town
to
>]show the peasantry how the systems would work.
>
>Who taught that you crap? Yr politically correct, femi-nazi teachers?
>Ever heard of the Kulaks?
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You don't even know how Mao got support! HAHAHAHAHA
And goddamn you go on with some shit... "politically correct this",
"femi-nazi that"... to anyone who has a clue. Look up, "The Search For
Modern China." This is book is currently the most accurate depiction of
China from 1550 to present date. In fact, before you crap on anymore about
China, buy and read this book because your ignorance is irritating,
especially when you think you know what you're talking about... hahaha
>
>]BTW, do you think the Nationalists were nice? They were corrupt right
>]through, which is why they lost support.
>
>.....no: they lost support because certain foreign banks funded the
>Bolsheviks from the word GO. The Bolshies had virtually no support to
>start with. Look up the name: Edward Mandell House
The peasants HATED the Nationalists. Mao got his power from the peasants.
The cities were originally Nationalist.
>
>]The Maoists (not Marxists you twit), were popular to begin with. It is
>]later on that they became quite evil.
>
>They were _destined_ to become evil, operating from the set of
>bullshit premisses that they did. Strange that, isn't it?
>All these commies supposedly ‘started off good' and then
>came a cropper! Must be the nature of the beast!
You're right, though the way you came to that conclusion is just another
load of horseshit.
>
>>]What, corrupt? ;)
>>
>>nahhh..they've bin corrupt in Oz since the Rum Rebellion.
>>I'm talkin' about femi-nazis and politically correct punks being
>>issued with uniforms, badges, heavy calibre handguns and a licence to
kill!
>
>]Err, you talk to any young cops lately? Not much of that going round...
>
>No? They had a whole big inquiry on it right here in Victoria only a few
>years ago.
>It was called ‘The Police Shootings Inquiry'
>Thatz wot happens when you get rid of all the old, mature, experienced cops
>and
>replace them with a bunch of femi-nazis and politically correct thugs!
You're insane! That's got nothing to do with what you're talking about. If
the cops aren't being trained properly, than the Academy failed. Cops are
people, not robots.
Chris
G
As I said. You clearly avoid the issue. If you don't like Vialls' version of
events how about the court transcripts which clearly spell out the video
evidence 'problems' (one camera only used, tape audio out of step with the
video elements, and the fact that something like a third of the interview is
censored)
No surprises so far, all you can do is scream :"that's a lie, that's a lie,
that's a lie"
Sadly, it's not. Go on, go look at the court transcripts, they are public
information after all. Difficult to get for some 'mysterious' reason, but
surely, you'll go through the trouble right? (fat chance, more like scream
they are irrelevant or something).
> > I fully expect you to snip them and avoid every one of them. Followed of
> > course by some irrelevant comment.
>
> No, I'm not one of you conspiracy theorists. Why don't you answer this
question
> straight out. Do you believe that it was a "UN backed PsyOp" in Port
Arthur as
> your hero Vialls believes??? I just want everyone to get a clear picture
of your
> level of sanity, and your answer to this question will give us that
picture.
I have no idea who backed that operation. All I am convinced of is that it
was not perpetrated by Bryant as the only 'lone nut gunman' and that some
very professional (if evil) people were involved. Are YOU saying Bryant did
it all by himself are you?
I just want to understand with what level of insanity I'm dealing here you
understand, so kindly answer the question yes?
> > You remain at best a LOON
>
> Monty Python obviously left a lasting impression on you.
>
>
> > at worst, another brainwashed example of
> > government propaganda buddy.
>
> Yeah I'm a secret agent and glow in the dark, I've also got x-ray vision
and I
> can fly. For fucks sake, grow a brain.
>
>
> > Wake up.
>
> hahahaha. Stop tripping, reality has much fewer conspiracies.
You poor sad bastard. Although in reality I can't bring myself to believe
you actually believe this last statement of yours, so I can only really say
you're more likely to just be a bastard.
G.
d'geezer
> > course by some irrelevant comment.
>
> No, I'm not one of you conspiracy theorists. Why don't you answer this question
> straight out. Do you believe that it was a "UN backed PsyOp" in Port Arthur as
> your hero Vialls believes??? I just want everyone to get a clear picture of your
> level of sanity, and your answer to this question will give us that picture.
>
>
> Monty Python obviously left a lasting impression on you.
>
> > at worst, another brainwashed example of
> > government propaganda buddy.
>
> Yeah I'm a secret agent and glow in the dark, I've also got x-ray vision and I
> can fly. For fucks sake, grow a brain.
>
> > Wake up.
>
> hahahaha. Stop tripping, reality has much fewer conspiracies.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you a government agent desperately
trying to salvage his mission. If he reports back that we didn't fall
for it he is in serious trouble with his superiors. Now what ever shall
we give him to report. I know: We don't fall for your BS for a moment
government shill. d'geezer
PS having some training in an older style of combat shooting related to
current methods (Some Fairbarne training, the grandfather of current
raid methods) I found a great deal credible in the conspiracy, at least
in that the arrested suspect couldn't have been the shooter. d'g
--
"We have a government that believes that an inauguration was a
coronation."
RD Thompson, 2000
G
d'geezer <d'geezer@d'geezer.net> wrote in message
news:I%rK4.2583$i91....@nntp3.onemain.com...
Do you think they might actually fire the Goddamn idiot? I mean, if we have
to be subjected to opressive government it would at least be cool to think
they are winning because they are smarter than us....:) But I fear it's just
that they have no sense of shame, that and that they are the most dangerous
of the 4 types of people, you know, you get intelligent active people (a
rare mutant breed, Einstein was supposedly one, a few others have existed in
time or so the legends go), then you get intelligent lazy people (a few of
those around, as you can tell from this NG) then you get stupid lazy ones,
plenty of those, a vast majority in the world. And finally, you get the
dread government people. Really stupid active ones!
Fear them!
G.
louis denger
He should have been applied the Taliban Justice.
Salutations
Louis AD
jimbo wrote in message <38f2...@news.alphalink.com.au>...
>The outrageous travesty of justice that constituted the Martin Bryant
>'trial' should
>be a lasting shame to every citizen of this nation who values 'a fair go'
>and 'equal justice for all before the law'
>Is this what we have now descended to in this country?
>Media-controlled show trials? Where did these maggots get their
>idea of jurisprudence from? North Korea?!
>
>"in a nation that unjustly gaols its citizens, the only place for a just
man
>is in gaol"
>
>More here: http://www.webaxs.net/~noel/letters/inquiry.htm.
Hunter
> As I said. You clearly avoid the issue. If you don't like Vialls' version of
> events
I'm not really into theories that come from people that claim that the UN was
behind the massacre.
> how about the court transcripts which clearly spell out the video
> evidence 'problems' (one camera only used, tape audio out of step with the
> video elements, and the fact that something like a third of the interview is
> censored)
> No surprises so far, all you can do is scream :"that's a lie, that's a lie,
> that's a lie"
Did I? I'm only asking you to offer any proof other than Viall's vitriol.
> Sadly, it's not. Go on, go look at the court transcripts, they are public
> information after all. Difficult to get for some 'mysterious' reason, but
> surely, you'll go through the trouble right? (fat chance, more like scream
> they are irrelevant or something).
Why re-invent the wheel? You claim to have read them (at least I hope you do as
you're using them as a supposed source of evidence) so why don't you point us to
them?
> I have no idea who backed that operation. All I am convinced of is that it
> was not perpetrated by Bryant as the only 'lone nut gunman' and that some
> very professional (if evil) people were involved. Are YOU saying Bryant did
> it all by himself are you?
Yup, I also don't believe that the Bavarian Illuminati run the world either.
> I just want to understand with what level of insanity I'm dealing here you
> understand, so kindly answer the question yes?
Martin Bryant's level is enough for all of us don't you think?
> You poor sad bastard. Although in reality I can't bring myself to believe
> you actually believe this last statement of yours, so I can only really say
> you're more likely to just be a bastard.
There's plenty of conspiracies around, but I don't happen to believe in the UN
ate my baby, errrr hang on... that was the Dingo... I don't happen to believe in
the UN shot up my town conspiracy. If that makes me a bastard, then I spose I'm
a bastard (of course you base that abuse on as much evidence as Bryant's
innocence...)
Hunter
> Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you a government agent desperately
> trying to salvage his mission. If he reports back that we didn't fall
> for it he is in serious trouble with his superiors. Now what ever shall
> we give him to report. I know: We don't fall for your BS for a moment
> government shill. d'geezer
>
> PS having some training in an older style of combat shooting related to
> current methods (Some Fairbarne training, the grandfather of current
> raid methods) I found a great deal credible in the conspiracy, at least
> in that the arrested suspect couldn't have been the shooter. d'g
hahahaah, well there we have it....
I'm a government agent and Bryant is innocent. You're dead right! Now lie down and
take your Thorazine.
Hunter
> Do you think they might actually fire the Goddamn idiot? I mean, if we have
> to be subjected to opressive government it would at least be cool to think
> they are winning because they are smarter than us....:) But I fear it's just
> that they have no sense of shame, that and that they are the most dangerous
> of the 4 types of people, you know, you get intelligent active people (a
> rare mutant breed, Einstein was supposedly one, a few others have existed in
> time or so the legends go), then you get intelligent lazy people (a few of
> those around, as you can tell from this NG) then you get stupid lazy ones,
> plenty of those, a vast majority in the world. And finally, you get the
> dread government people. Really stupid active ones!
> Fear them!
Careful, I'll have to have our Martian agents shoot up your town and get you
busted for it. (See what you don't know is that when the Illuminati was purging
the court records they also removed the bits that said the corpses were
radioactive)
jimbo
>The implication is clear......they _may_ exist but their presence is
>incidental/minuscule. Compared to the virtual non-existence of such
>crimes in the 1950s, we are now CHOCK-A-BLOCK with them.
>If we got much more, we'd be _OVERFLOWING_
>Get it?!
]don't have the crime levels for 1950 on hand but generally, as populations
]grow, so does crime.
We're not talking about _crime_...we're talking about crime _rates_.
As in: murders per 100000;assaults per 100000;robberies per 100000;
There is no evidence that increased population means increased crime _rates_
>>Look again. If you can't understand figure comparisons....perhaps
>>a graph might help?
>>(http://www.ssaa.org.au/Doc24.htm.) >
>]What's wrong, not happy with the ABS figures? >
>Quite happy. I'm _unhappy_ with yr bodgie interpretation of them, is all!
But
]I agreed with your ABS figures... armed robbery has increased
]dramatically. Unfortunately, that is not within the realms of this thread
as it
]clearly states these are personal crimes, not property crimes.
A property crime _becomes_ a personal crime when the burglar decides to
escalate
the level of violence....then you have a _property_ crime _and_ a _personal_
crime.
>]Second thing... notice the curve before the gun buy back scheme? It's
>]exactly the same. Stupid!
> >Itz the curve _after_ the Gun Grab thatz important....notice the steep
>increase? It couldn't be plainer! Sheezzzzz....didn't u do 'graphs' at
school? Did
>you, in fact,go to school at all?!
]Don't try and run away by pretending to miss my point, you know exactly
what I
]mean. The graph pre gun grab has a curver IDENTICAL to the curve after the
]gun grab. The gun grab did NOTHING to that graph's ROI.
Well, thatz just crap for starters! You can get a better picture here:
http://www.ssaa.org.au/UNLAWFULENTRY9697STATS.HTML.
Of course, u'v actually dodged the issue again, haven't u? If the Gun Grab
had to have a positive effect, we'd say a curve levelling out
like this: ________________ right?
Or even a 'negative' curve like this: \
\
\ Right?
Do we see that? Of course not! We simply see, at best,
the same ol' increase.
However, seeing as how therez a contention here, let's do some simple
trigonometry.
(Using graph at: http://www.ssaa.org.au/Doc24.htm.)
Now, Gradient = Rise/Run=Total nmbr of victims/Year.
We'll divide the victims up into 15000-blocks of units and the Years into
12-mnth periods.
Ok, now let's take the period 1995/1996.
Gradient =[(399735-384908)/15000]/12=0.08; Rate of increase= 0.08;
*1996/1997
Gradient =[(417845-399735)/15000]/12=0.10; Rate of increase= 0.10;
WOW! Already a _reasonably_ significant rate of increase!
*1997/1998
Gradient =[(435670-417845)/15000]/12=0.099; Rate of increase~ 0.10;
Since the graph is more likely a curve than a straight line....as per:
http://www.ssaa.org.au/UNLAWFULENTRY9697STATS.HTML.,
ideally we need some calculus to ascertain the gradient accurately.
However, our simple trigonometric method gives us a _definite_ increase
post-Gun Grab.
So, yr statement:
"The gun grab did NOTHING to that graph's ROI" is clearly so much
codswallop! Sorry!
>>]DUH! Look at your graph. The rate of increase has not budged, has it? >
>Have you got a vision prblm or something? There is
>a _clear_ increase....quite a steep one, in fact!
]Go and look again! 1/3 of the way up is gun grab. Do you know what an
]equal rate of increase is? It means, the rate of increasing crimes is
]EXACTLY THE SAME before and after the gun grab. The graph even shows you
]where gun grab is! For fuck's sake!
Well: yr clearly wrong! As the calculations above demonstrate.
>>Recorded crimes with a weapon in Victoria:
>>Year: 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 (half year)
>>Firearm >>
447 372 473 485 520 256 >
>]Slight decrease in last year (assuming final figure x 2). >
>But look at the increase from 1994/95(pre-Gun Grab).....473 to, let's
>say, a final figure of 520 for 1998/99(it's probably much higher.....but
>we'll settle for no increase from the previous yr).
>That makes an _increase_ of almost 10%.
]Then explain why 93/94 is nearly as high as 95/96? Also, what is the real
]increase % taking into account population changes in Victoria?
Let's ask rather: how come the post-Gun Grab rates are clearly
_increasing_ instead of decreasing?
We may also ask: why did the rates drop in 1994/1995 and increase
dramatically from 1996 onwards?
AFAIK, there was not much of an _increase_ in
Victoria's population: at least, not over that short a period of time.
However, what we are comparing is _rates of increase_ not _increase_ period.
And the _increase_ from 1995/1996 to 1996/1997 is 2.5% and
the increase from 1996/1997 to 1997/1998 is 7.2% UGGGHHHH!
>So:the most violent crime(with firearms) that the Gun Grab was
>'intended' to prevent(actually, the likes of PM Howard never claimed that
>the
community would be safer because of the Gun Grab anyway....
>http://www.ssaa.org.au/quoteozpm.html )
>has_increased_, if not substantially, at least significantly.
]Duh, I know what he said. I know the gun grab was a complete political
]sham.
Amazing!
<snipped remainder dscssn of Herald-Sun stats & assctd notes!>
]Guns are not removed from the black market though.
...and never will be. And, so, we all now know(don't we?) That crims
will always be able to get guns and that Gun Grabs increase crime not
decrease it.....as we have now demonstrated ad nauseum!
(Just checking on that!)
<snip!>
>Wot the hell's a burglary then.....where the owner is at home?
]Property crime. As indicated on the ABS page YOU gave me. You'd think
]you'd at least bother to read it.
They make no distinctive definitions as such(as in: 'owner is home';
'owner is not home'). A thug intending to burgle
a home where the owner is home and not too fussy about a confrontation
is closer to an aggravated burglary than OTW, AFAIMC!
<snip on burglars in bedrooms at 3a.m...yr never gunna see my point on
that 'till u'v been involved in a similar situation.....get some
on-job-training!>
>*When only the crims have guns, they are that much more bolder and brazener
>and all sorts of crime(including violent crime) increases...get the
picture?
]Meaning they do not need firearms, as their victims are less armed.
Pssbly...but a crim or a thug will exploit any advantage.
When they know there is a high probability their victims will be unarmed,
they will arm themselves to ensure 'overwhelming superiority'
Did I post those stats about Florida Airport? Can't remember.
The crims were having a field day bailing up tourists until the
Florida authorities allowed interstate tourists to check in
their guns on the 'planeand retrieve them on
landing....providing they had CC permits in state of origin!
>"Availability of guns doesn't make crims go and get more guns,
>it just makes them easier to get ig they want one."(that is: reduce the
nmbr of guns in the
>community and the crims will have less guns too!)
]That's not what "that is" at all. If there are MORE guns available to
]criminals, and LESS guns available to the victims, the criminals DO NOT
NEED to
]use the excess guns because there is LESS RISK for them when they go to a
]commit a break in. Get it?
They won't go and commit break-ins _at all_ if the
house-holders are _armed_, irrespective of whether _they_
have guns or not! That's according to Kleck's research!
>Does the same argument wash with cars? Motorbikes? Chain-saws?
>Skateboards?
]It should. Car licences should be much harder to get and require defensive
]driving courses.
And, guvmints'd be voted out of office so fast their
heads'd spin _backwards_
Unfortunately, there's about 3-4 times as
many car-owners as gun owners.
I think it wuz 1-in-4 households with a gun.
But it's 2 cars-per-household.
U don't go playin' funny buggers with that sort of voting block.
(Hmmm..might explain why they can't institute Gun Grabs in the US!)
>]Did you get your gun taken from you?
> >I sold it before the Gun Grab. Post-Gun Grab, and with the new
draconican
>restrictions,I couldn't be bothered re-applying(especially when they
introduced a 10+ pg
>application form in Victoria)
]Oh no, not a whole 10 pages! If it's too hard, fill out 1 page per day.
It's not the nmbr of pgs,it's the information they
want(over and above the basics...name/address/marital status/date birth)
that I happen to think they're _not_ entitled to.....especially when it's
gunna disappear into some cop database and, from there,
who knows.......
>Sorry...if you fear for yr life...you _can't_ wait weeks for a licence. You
>need a gun _quick_. Since I have extensive home security I am,
mercifully,spared
>that anxiety. Others are not so lucky!
]LOL! So you're telling me the following: -
]people can anticipate when they will be attacked - it's
]better to not get one at all and be exposed forever to attack, than wait
]several weeks and risk only a few weeks
No...I'm saying most people don't need one until there's a _realistic_
threat of attack. I'm also saying that if they _did_ get one _now_
for the purposes of fending off an attack, they may end up finding
themselves in more (legal)trouble than the attacker!
]I'm sorry that's the mosty non-logical thing you've said. Try again.
I'm sorry...u didn't think through what I was saying. Try again!
<snipped stuff on aggravated burglaries &c ....no debate possible! Yr just
not
getting wot I'm saying. I just hope, for yr sake, that u don't have to find
out the hard way!>
]the frequent media stories concerning bashed-up old age pensioners. Yes,
these people are cowards, but it's not the norm. It's in the 21%
]category.
21% is a significant enough minority of burglars to make you worried
....or should be!
>(There was a plague of 'em a coupla years ago in an inner-Sydney suburb....
>Can't remember which one exactly...)
]The media has a frenzy with different types of crimes in different periods.
]They'll overly report on say, home invasions for a while, and thenstart
]putting them back in the little "briefs" column when they think their
]readership is sick of hearing about it.
The electronic/prime time media, sure! But these incidents
were also extensively covered in the print media; by
serious(or purportedly 壮erious'!) broadsheet newspapers and
weekly news- magazines like 禅he Bulletin'
So....it _was_ actually happening and with enough frequency to
have a lot of people in those areas worried!
<snipped!>
>]Most journalists know shit-all about guns and have no interest in them.
>They may know 'shit-all' about guns, but they sure as hell have an
>_interest_ in them....as evidenced by the SHIT they tipped on
>gun owners and shooters post-Prt Arthur. Or are u gunna
>actually deny that?
]No,of course they did. It's newsworthy and gets people razzed up (like
]you). So everyday, people like you and the anti-gun people go off and buy a
]paper to see what's being said. You think they actually have something
]personal against guns. Maybe the columnists do, but the rest are just
]trying to impress the editor.
Well.....we're not actually talking about junior
reporters, or even regular/staff reporters.
We're talking about journos/contributors who write the
major opinion pieces(exmpls: Gerard Henderson,Phillip Adams,
Tim Colebatch, Margo Kingston) and the editorials.
<snip!>
>]writing which adversely affects the way you think a break in plays out.
> >Ho hum! I guess all thug violence is just 'B Grade movie scripts' and,
>hence unreal by definition?!
]Your take on real life is unreal
I really wish it was.......!
>]No, it doesn't even make sense in Oz. They still would not, if unaffected
>]by drugs, jump at you if you have a gun.
>same ol', same ol'.......
]That's right, I have to keep saying it because you're twice as dense as the
]average idiot.
Trouble is......u just _haven't established that_ have u?
Here we are, several posts later,
and yr still floundering to establish yr case.
The average idiot could have been polished off
in one post........someone twice as dense in half that!
>]So you'd let anyone over 18 have a gun of any type with few storage
>]requirements and no enforced training? That's a good way to fuck the
>]country up. Hey, then you won't have to move to the US, you can bring it
>]right on over to Australia. More or less.
]Move to the US. Others don't want a replica US here. And if our social
]problems get worse (I partially blame all the litigation crap parents and
]teachers get hammered with, thus allowing their kids to grow up as
]irresponsible no gooders!) widespread gun ownership could get bad for us.
[i]Why should i move to the US? I was born here, worked here,
paid taxes here, had family here.
No...it's the politically correct thugs, anti-gun loons and traitorous
pollies who'll be moving...
Not me, or people who share similar beliefs
[ii]We couldn't get much worse with widespread gun ownership than
we already are.....The problem, anyway, is in _society_ not with guns.
With more psychos running around the streets, people need _protection_
And the guvmint sure as hell ain't giving it to them!
>The point is, the gun laws we had pre-Gun Grab worked just fine!
]Nearly. Why did mentally unstable types like Bryant have access to
]firearms? The sensible thing that should have been done by the Government
was
]not the outrightly ban guns, but simply place tighter restrictions on
]those allowed to own a gun. This is what I would like to see happen, with
the
]reintroduction of the guns we had taken from us.
See the stuff posted up on the other thread concerning Prt Arthur.
There is now considerable doubt that Bryant even owned a gun or,
that if he did, he could have used it effectively.
>The fact that we are now in the middle of a crime-wave seems to
>indicate that the new ones may _not_ be working fine at all! As
>per the statistics I posted re: CC laws in the US, widespread
>gun ownership doesn't seem to FK anything up....it makes life quite
>liveable indeed! An armed society is a polite society!
]I want those guns back, albeit under more restrictions, but what you're
]saying isn't true. Gun ownership is fine, however, letting anyone buy a gun
]allows the loons in, and then we have unstable fuckers using their legal
guns
]to mow down their family etc.
You can't pick 鼠oons' anyway. Someone could legitimately qualify for
a gun and then go 鼠oony toons' later. And not _anyone_ can buy a gun....
Just like they couldn't pre-Gun Grab. You had to be over 18 for starters.
But, the argument doesn't hold up...._anyone_ can buy a car. Why
can't anyone(of adult age) buy a gun? Remembering that
crims'll always get them, regardless.
>>]b) why risk your livelihood when you can run off and try robbing another
>>]house in another neighbourhood? >>
>>Because, being a drugged out psycho, >
>]...rarely... >
>Sorry...someone who regularly takes drugs and does burglaries to pay for
>them does not qualify as a 'rational thinker' in my lexicon!
]It's the only rational way to support the habbit. If they're not flogged
]when they do the robbery, they're probably quite clear minded (especially
if
]they're heroin users... these people can live quite normal lives outside of
their
]drug habit).
Normal lives? You call doing burglaries and terrorising people
on a regular basis a 創ormal' life?
Sheeezzzzz....
<snipped stuff on burglars and KKK.....no possibility of rational debate
here!>
>Maybe....but Marxists have brutally exterminated nearly 150 million people
this century?
]No, Marxists haven't done much killing. Communist Governments have done a
]good deal of killing, but they've not really been Marxist, they've simply
part-
]modelled their economics on Marxist thought.
Sorry.....it's Marxist thought thatz led directly to those killings.....go
and
read yr Lenin. He was Marxism in action. And who do you think
the 舛ommunist Government' got to do their killings for them?
Their Marxist henchmen, of course!
]Your figure is also wrong. The figure is, in this century, all Governments
have
]killed 120 million people. You should know that, being an anti-govttype.
The figure for the commies is pushing the 100 million mark, officially.
(USSR, China, Nrth Korea &c)
Ok...I took a few liberties. But, you can add on at least another five or
six mlln, courtesy of yr Sth East Asias and various flavours of
African jungle Marxists
>How many have the KKK wiped out? A hundred? A thousand?
>More like a few dozen, I'd say!
]How many would they like to wipe out? You can closely associate Neo-Nazi
]acivity with these types anyway, and then the figure gets up there if you
include WW2's casualties. As bad as Communist dictators!
Not quite! For a start, the WWII casualties were during
a _war_ situation. The commies killed in cold blood during peace time!
Also, the figures for the Nazis are in dispute and have been for some time.
Many now doubt that the so-called 践olocaust' even happened
(or, at least, that the figures were wildly exaggerated as part and parcel
of
war-time propaganda....not a view that I necessarily ascribe to myself,
but there _are_ some worrying anomalies about the popular version
pushed in the media!)
>Just fine thnx! And u? Howz it feel living in a state run by a bunch of
scum?
]You're a bit of a whacko aren't you? Come on, fess up.
Wot the HELL are u then? U haven't been able to effectively
refute anything I'v posted so far....So........roll out the labels.
Is that it? Have a look at the cvs of some of those clowns on the
lock,stock & barrel web pg if u wanna good description of a 層hacko'!
<snipped!>
>So, unless you voted Independent, that means that you voted either
National, Liberal or
>Labor(or Democrat!) IOW: yr a LABORAL supporter! And you wanna sit there in
front of yr
>'puda and protest:"but I'm not PC" Methinks he doth protest TOO MUCH!
]I voted Liberal actually.
And yr the bloke sitting there saying, 選 wish we could get our guns back
[even if there's a few restrictions]'
Gimme a BREAK!
]What did you do, plan to blow up a polling booth?
I voted One Nation Party, actually. And _proud_ of it...even if they
came to grief later on (through no fault of the vast bulk of loyal members
...of which I, also, was one!)
I can tell you this much....there were a hell of a lot more decent,
honorable and genuine people in One Nation Party than there ever were
in that bunch of sycophantic, branch-stacking,
politically correct nincompoops...the LABORALS!
<snipped!>
>Crap! That wuz all media BULLSHIT! All
>polls are dodgey, but 70-80% is a clear winner.
>There was 250000 people demonstrated in Mlbrn against the new
>Gun Grab Laws..there was less than 15000 demonstrated for them....
>Therez yr ratio......more than 10-to-1
]You seriously take rally numbers as a true reflection of wider Australian
]preferences? There are more gun owners then anti-gun loons! What did you
]think would happen? Most people couldn't give a fuck if guns were banned.
...and a HELL of a lot did give a fk! How do we know this?
By the subsequent election results in Qlnsnd, NSW, Victoria
and Federal
]Everyone I talked to, (except my friend and I) thought the gun laws were
]reasonable!
Really? And naturally they were appraised of the
facts of the situation...including the ominous
question marks hanging over the raison d'etre of the whole exercise...Prt
Arthur??
An uninformed opinion is just that....an opinion.
<snipped!>
>And that's why we've got Gun Grab laws...because of media-brainwashed
>schmucks like u who go along with every bit of CRAP Big Brother tells
>'em!
]But I don't you toss, which makes you look kind of silly, doesn't it!? I
was
]never happy with the gun laws being introduced, but then I couldn't
]believe the Medical Association of Australia (GPs etc.) did not warn anyone
]about Bryant when they knew he had guns, and he was on medication. They
were
]at fault! There needs to be mechanisms in place to stop unstable
]people getting access to guns.
Bryant had little or nothing to do with Prt Arthur.
It's as well you acquaint yr-self with that fact before disputing
others.(http://www.overflow.net.au/~nedwood/portarthur.html.)
After all, it's wot this whole friggin thread is supposed to be about, u
know!
<snipped!>
>Well..._U_ certainly don't seem to know much, judging by the tripe u'v
>been wasting my time with over the last few days.....
]Owning a gun isn't a political statement. It's a sport/hobby and will later
be
]part of my profession. I don't start quoting the American constitution as
]soon as I buy one.
Pity that! It's documents like the US Constitution and the
1688 Bill of Rights that allow people to buy and keep guns, in the first
place.
Without them, we'd have to rely on the tender mercies of the pollies.....and
we
all know wot _they're_ like, now don't we? Hmmmm..?!
>]What exactly is wrong with a Glock 22 (.40 S&W)? >
>The same thing thatz wrong with any gun these days..... not worth having
>if it can be taken off u five minutes later!
]Blah blah... don't go annoy people then.
Blah blah BLAH, _BLAH_!.....and how do you propose I,
or other people, accomplish that?
Spend the rest of our lives living in caves?
The purpose of politically correct garbage like
AVOs is to _ensure_ that people _get_ annoyed for no rational reason...
and then afflict their annoyance on others through the court system.
<stuff on close encounters of the thug kind snipped...u'll never know 奏ill
u try it!>
>]Tokyo had something like 11 murders with a firearm last year. >
>Check the other post on that.......
]Yeh,the best you could reply with was, "Those figures are false!".
Uh huh! I notice u couldn't refute the official Japanese Government
document relating to the incidence of handgun crime in Japan.
How do you explain _that_?
<snip!>
>>And the same piece of fiction that's formed the basis for all our
>>laws,
>]Very much a "basis" only, as we've evolved a fair bit since then. >
>Ohh yeah? Guess when it 'evolves' into "murder is Ok" that will be
>just fine and dandy, rite?
]What's this blabber?
Just this: if laws 粗volve', as you so
quaintly put it(interestingly, borrowing a term from Mr Charles Darwin's
long discredited and ludicrous 奏heory'!), wotz to stop the law on murder,
at some point in the not too distant future, being:
"it's perfectly Ok to kill people of 1.5 metres in height with red hair and
green eyes"?!
>]The morals aren't fiction now are they? The stories which bring them about
>]are... but it's good if it teaches people basic morals.
> >If the stories are only that...stories...then the morals haven't any
>real basis have they?
]Of course they do. They're called parrabels. Stories which teach people a
lesson.
The parables have to have a solid basis in fact, OTW they're
just fairy stories.
Like warning someone about the dangers of working with
electricity by using examples in the form of 壮tories'
<snippo!>
>Sorry...most of the stuff in the Bible is intended to be taken as literal
historical fact.
]Ugh. It's a religious interpretation of events. The people who take it as
fact
]are called fundamentalists,
Translation: orthodox xians who actually believe the basis for their faith,
the Bible,
has at least some basis in fact(previously, the position of every xian
church on the face of the planet)
]and IMO, are fairly simple minded.
Ever talked to one? U might find that _yr_ the one who's 壮imple minded'
and unable to back up his 礎eliefs'
]As long as they live out good lives, I don't really care.
Thatz Big of u!
<snip!>
]The meanings are clear. The symbolism, miracles, "God said" bits, and other
]phenomena are superstitions and fabricated stories intended to teach.
Nope they're not. They're intended as actual historical accounts of events,
inexplicable by naturalistic explanations...IOW: _miracles_ Their truth
hinges on the
veracity of the other events in the particular chronicle.
U really need to read C S Lewis on this particular topic if you ever intend
engaging a _real_ xian(i.e: one that can effectively
defend his or her faith) in anything resembling an intelligent conversation!
]Anyway, you're entitled to your faith. It's not my place to question your
]beliefs, but don't expect me to take your literal interpretations of the
bible
]seriously, because I cannot.
There is no other way to take the Bible _except_ literally.
Obviously, there are poetical, allegorical and figurative parts of the
Bible.....
but those are minimal and easily recognised as such.
Like any book that purports to be fact, you either accept it in its
entirety or reject it _outright_
There is _NO_ middle ground. It must be either True or False!
>]You don't like chardonnay? >
>...just the type of people who usually drink it!
]So you never have a glass of chardonnay? Poor bastard! I have some cheap
shit
]in the fridge, goes down well with a bowl of chips!
Nope...I'm a James Boag's Premium Export Lager drinker, meself!
>]Err no. If you knew anything about the era, you'd know the Communists used
>]agrarian politics, and because the people liked their ideas, they joined
>the
>]Communist's side. The done thing was to send one or two men into a town to
>]show the peasantry how the systems would work. >
>Who taught that you crap? Yr politically correct, femi-nazi teachers?
>Ever heard of the Kulaks?
]BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA You
]don't even know how Mao got support! HAHAHAHAHA And
]goddamn you go on with some shit... "politically correct this",
]"femi-nazi that"... to anyone who has a clue. Look up, "The Search For
]Modern China." This is book is currently the most accurate depiction of
]China from 1550 to present date. In fact, before you crap on anymore about
]China, buy and read this book because your ignorance is irritating,
]especially when you think you know what you're talking about... hahaha
I see. Wot part of Chinese history don't u rckn I understand?
The bit where Mao murdered about 50 million?The Cultural Revolution?
Perhaps _you_ should read some cold, hard factual accounts on this
yrself? Start with the Encylopaedia Brittanica!
<snipped>
>They were _destined_ to become evil, operating from the set of
>bullshit premisses that they did. Strange that, isn't it? All
>these commies supposedly 'started off good' and then
>came a cropper! Must be the nature of the beast!
]You're right, though the way you came to that conclusion is just another
load
]of horseshit.
You don't say? Care to point out the flaws in my logic?
Let's see what _you really_ know about Marxism!
>>]What, corrupt? ;)
>>nahhh..they've bin corrupt in Oz since the Rum Rebellion.
>>I'm talkin' about femi-nazis and politically correct punks being
>>issued with uniforms, badges, heavy calibre handguns and a licence to
kill!
>]Err, you talk to any young cops lately? Not much of that going round...
>No? They had a whole big inquiry on it right here in Victoria only a few
>years ago. It was called 'The Police Shootings Inquiry'
>Thatz wot happens when you get rid of all the old, mature, experienced cops
>and replace them with a bunch of femi-nazis and politically correct thugs!
]You're insane! That's got nothing to do with what you're talking about. If
the
]cops aren't being trained properly, than the Academy failed. Cops are
]people, not robots.
"As the streets became more dangerous, the police on the beat were
becoming less experienced. The joke that police look younger as you grow
older wasn't funny any more; it was coming true. This was because a
superannuation
scheme, introduced in 1987, meant that many experienced police were able to
leave
in mid-career. Many of the best grabbed the chance to leave, and took plum
jobs in
private enterprise. The force lost thousands of years experience at the
first
level of supervision--sergeants, senior sergeants and inspectors. ...At one
point,
the force was losing 60 members a month. The recession of the early 1990s
slowed
the drain as jobs become harder to find on the outside. The result was that
between
July 1987 and June 1990, the force recruited 3000 members--32 per cent of
the total
strength. It was a massive change. The recruiting office was under pressure
to find
60 suitable recruits a month; the Police Academy was permanently full. On
top of
the massive drain through resignations and early retirements, the government
had
promised to boost police numbers by 1000 members. Recruiting officers
advertised
statewide and could not afford to be too selective. The recruits' average
age was
21 years, 11 months. The size limit had been dropped--and 15% were women.
Significantly, the 3000 new members were all recruited after the 閃ad Max'
(Pavel Marinoff...a Bulgarian Army deserter who shot several police in
Victoria in 1986,
and was later killed by police a shootout at Kalkallo, on Melbourne's
north-west fringe)
incident and the Russell Street bombing, as the force was coming to terms
with the
increased violence it was forced to confront. The fact that the force was
becoming
an equal opportunity employer was politically correct, but it didn't help on
the street.
Once, if police were called to a pub brawl, they were likely to be bigger,
older and
more imposing than the troublemakers. By the late 1980s, the brawlers were
no
smaller or less violent than ever, but the police might be a slightly-built
youth who'd
never worked with grown men before joining the force, and an even smaller
policewoman.
The lack of physical authority meant that they had to rely on the .38 Smith
& Wesson
prominently displayed on their hips. Senior police began to worry privately
about
the number of police shootings by the late 1980s. At one point, they even
considered
abandoning the SOG and the armed robbery squads..........."
[from: 禅he Silent War: Behind the police killings that shook Australia'
by John Silvester, Andrew Rule and Owen Davies;
Floradale Productions Pty Ltd, 1995; pp216-217]
Damian Parish
> Hunter wrote:
> > hahahaha. Stop tripping, reality has much fewer conspiracies.
>
> Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you a government agent desperately
> trying to salvage his mission. If he reports back that we didn't fall
> for it he is in serious trouble with his superiors. Now what ever shall
> we give him to report. I know: We don't fall for your BS for a moment
> government shill. d'geezer
The sad part is, you are probably serious, and believe all this crap about bryant.
Maybe if he'd only killed 12 people, he'd be guilty? Maybe if he'd only been caught
with the two dead bodies in the burning house, he'd be guilty? Maybe if he'd only
chased and shot the child and no adults, he'd be guilty? Maybe not, eh?
How is mr Irving, anyway?
<snip bfd>
G
> G wrote:
>
> > Do you think they might actually fire the Goddamn idiot? I mean, if we
have
> > to be subjected to opressive government it would at least be cool to
think
> > they are winning because they are smarter than us....:) But I fear it's
just
> > that they have no sense of shame, that and that they are the most
dangerous
> > of the 4 types of people, you know, you get intelligent active people (a
> > rare mutant breed, Einstein was supposedly one, a few others have
existed in
> > time or so the legends go), then you get intelligent lazy people (a few
of
> > those around, as you can tell from this NG) then you get stupid lazy
ones,
> > plenty of those, a vast majority in the world. And finally, you get the
> > dread government people. Really stupid active ones!
> > Fear them!
>
you
> busted for it. (See what you don't know is that when the Illuminati was
purging
> the court records they also removed the bits that said the corpses were
> radioactive)
"Hunter" you sick little fuck, you're failing badly in your 'mission' which
in your case is merely to type disinformation for a few hours a day, can't
you even get THAT right?
Geez, you probably have fantasies of being a MIB don't you.....
sad, and really all you get is that small windowless office in a grey
building and no real life to speak of. You'll take up smoking soon
enough....as Dean Adams...he chainsmoked.
G.
G
ineptitude even at a simple desk-bound job.
Hiya Damian, so as to save us all time (I know you don't want that but
that's irrelevant here) fuck off to deja news and catch up on this thread,
then be so kind as to respond to the individual points I mentioned wrt to
the Vialls theory of Port Arthur.
AFTER which we can start conversing on a more mature level, and UNTIL which,
you'll just be treated like your misinformation buddy Hunter ok?
See, the thing you have to realise is that propaganda is actually quite a
sophisticated thing and if we're to leave it to bottom of the rung employees
like yourself, well, it would just go to shit see?
So consider people like me as training for people like you ok? And feel free
to send me part of your salary too. After all, I AM providing you with a
service.
G.
Damian Parish <vag...@thehelm.com> wrote in message
news:38FC04DC...@thehelm.com...
> d'geezer wrote:
>
> > Hunter wrote:
> > > hahahaha. Stop tripping, reality has much fewer conspiracies.
> >
> > Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you a government agent desperately
> > trying to salvage his mission. If he reports back that we didn't fall
> > for it he is in serious trouble with his superiors. Now what ever shall
> > we give him to report. I know: We don't fall for your BS for a moment
> > government shill. d'geezer
>
G
Except that man DID NOT perpetrate that crime. Best case scenario he most
assuredly did NOT perpetrate it alone, worst case, he had nothing to do with
it.
Read up on the issue before you shoot your mouth off about things you are
ignorant of.
see:http://libyan.homestead.com/
G.
louis denger <lade...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:YmwK4.2919$E4....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
jimbo
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.gunfree.org/csgv/intchart.htm
>>>>
>>>>...an excellently objective source. About as credible as
>>>>a Mickey Mouse comic!
>>>
>>>As credible as your sources. Again, you've most likely never been to
>Japan
>>>or know anyone who has lived there. When you do find someone, ask them
>>what
>>>they think of the absence of violent crime, and of street crime
>>>(particularly the latter).
>>
>>The sources I quote use facts and evidence
>They very well may, but they have NOTHING to do with the figures I quoted.
>They're also heavily biased.
_Every_ source is biased. There is no such thing as an un-biased 'source'
They are presenting their side of the story and backing it up with
evidence....more convincing evidence than people like HCI or GCA!
>> Yours dont...thatz the
>>difference!
>>(or they cite flawed studies like the Kellerman study!)
>
>No, Jimbo, you're just denying a simple table of real numbers.
I'm denying their accuracy....especially the Jap ones!
><snip>
>>
>>>If you could even read the media, you'd realise they are never stuck on
>one
>>>side of the fence as far as guns are concerned. They side with whatever
>>>makes better news, but because of idiots like you, they often give
>shooters
>>>a bad name.
>>
>>And itz because of idiots like u that we now have the Gun Grab Laws
>
>No, Jimbo, the blame is on the moronics who give gun owner's that lunatic
>stereotype. And it's the noisy little fucks like you that cause us all the
>trouble.
And it's the noisy little fuck_wits_ (especially the ones that
vote Liberal!) like u that were responsible for us losing our guns to
start with and will probably ensure we never get them back.
The old order dies......the time of the radical approaches!
>>>>Now you know why I am apt to hang the PC label on _u_:
>>>>u more or less merit it(or, at least, qualify for 'honorary membership!)
>>
>>>No, I still don't think you grasp the concept. If I was truly PC, would
I
>>>continually use sexist references to a person by saying him or he and not
>>>him/her or he/she?
>>
>>big deal. Yr thinking's PC. Are you in fact a gun owner or just a friggin'
>>TROLL? You wouldn't be so keen to criticise the SSAA if u were!
>>(especially when they've backed their stuff up...unlike yr crap!)
>
>The SSAA are like any other interest group, they have to be biased (just
>like anti-gun people) otherwise their supporters wouldn't support them.
The
>unfortunate reality is "interest groups" get out of hand with political
>activists or ravers like you (or anti-gun loons) starting putting all their
>effort in to be irrational, so the groups get dodgey followings.
Perhaps u'd care to point out where I'v been 'irrational'
I can point out plenty of instances where _u_ have.....voting
Liberal to start with!
>>>>Check these for the true situation in Japan:
>>>>http://www.ozemail.com.au/~confiles/overseas.html#10.
>>>>http://www.ssaa.org.au/crab5.html.
>>
>>>Jimbo, neither of your sites disprove the above. One talks about
>organised
>>>crime, and the other about suicides. One is from the SSAA (if you want
to
>>>talk about Mickey Mouse, here you go for biases), and the other preaching
>>>the Safety Con. What were you saying about objective?
>>
>>....sorry: u must not have read the material properly.
>I've read it Jimbo, they have no real figures to disprove mine. Until you
>find some, you lose.
How about the Jpns Goverment document?
Do you dispute that as well?
Are you in denial mode?!
>>Here it is agin for u:
>>****************************************
>>Japanese police understate the amount of crime,
>>particularly covering up the problem of organised
>>crime, in order to appear more efficient and
>>worthy of the respect the citizens have for the police.
>>****************************************
>>
>>What have u got to disprove that? Or the Japanese Government material
about
>>handguns? Put up, or shut up, schmuck!
>
>This is someone'a arse-umption, which is about as valid as the psychic
>hotline. If some other fool says "The Japanese are not lying" on a
webpage,
>is that worth quoting? No. So you're still to come up with any proof
>discredit to the real figures.
Ok....and it's fairly safe for u to say that, because the data-gathering
and data-matching techniques of the Japanese Police is not a topic
that readily lends itself to assessment or scrutiny. That's the difference
between Oz and Japan....although they are both ostensibly 'liberal
democracies',
one is more or less a democracy while the other is just a different flavour
of totalitarianism with a 'democratic' gloss on it!
>>>You just don't like the figures because it disproves your horseshit.
>>Yr the only horseshitter around here, schmuck!
>>>America (1995) 13.7%
>>>Australia (1994) 3.05%
>>>Japan (1995) 0.07%
>>(understated by 10%?)
>Three numbers. Three countries. Read it. Not too hard is it?
It's hard enough when there's no good reason to trust the statistical
accuracy of the last one!
>>>Not hard to work out, eh? Personally I prefer what we have in Australia
to
>>a complete ban like Japan, however, I'd like to see semi-automatic rifles
be
>>>reintroduced but with more restrictions on the owners.
>>U could have fooled me.......!
>Yes, that's be a real feat, wouldn't it?
For u: YES!
>>Letting anyone to a gun? No way... we don't let anyone to a car, and even
>>a
>>>driver's licence should be harder to obtain (considering so many people
>>find
>>>it hard to use a bloody roundabout!).
>>
>>Sorry....am I restricted from buying certain types of cars, if I have the
>>money?
>
>You are restricted in a) your ability to use one, as you must hold a
>licence, and b) in the way you can use your car (ie. speeding etc.).
sorry...the question was: do any of those actually _PREVENT_
me from _BUYING_ a car?!
>>Come to think of it....if I am over 18, can I not buy _any_ care that
>>strikes my fancy(if I can afford it)?
>Ever heard of a TVR Speed 12? You cannot buy that without intensive
>training. Come to think of it, you can't put any real race car on the
road.
Sorry....I don't know wot a 'TVR Speed 12' is.
But I do know that you _can_ buy a (usually ex- !) Formula 1 car
_if_you_have_the_money_. Of course, that doesn't mean you
can drive it on the Queen's highway!
But, there is _nothing_ to prevent you _buying_ it and keeping
it in yr garage.
However, there is _PLENTY_ preventing you from buying
any particular firearm(pistol, rifle, shotgun) you feel like isn't there
now?!
>> Even if I _haven't_ got a licence....
>You cannot use it without a licence.
....but u can still _own_ it. And, there is nothing to
prevent u using it on a _private_ property
>>I may not be able to drive it on the road, but I _can_ drive it on a
>private
>>property!
>>Get a better analogy, clown!
>What's this got to do with my analogy? It's not going to be exactly the
>same, is it? The analogy still serves it's purpose, you just don't like
it.
It doesn't serve any purpose at all. It falls down on nearly every
point that qualifies analogies.
IOW: itz BALONEY!
>>> You're a whinger, Jimbo.
>>..and yr a schmuck!
>>>If you really wanted a gun, you'd go and get one.
>>sure i could..._if_ I done it illegally. But i have this little
>>fetish of abiding by the law of the land. If I don't like it,
>>I try to contribute to changing it!
>Funny that, there are a whole lot of people who own guns legally in
>Australia. What's your excuse?
*not being able to get the one/type I want;
*excessive bureacratic nonsense;
*requirements to give more information than I'm prepared to;
*increased penalties for 'misuse';
*increased likelihood of gun being confiscated for some triviality;
*being placed on a national database along with thugs, criminals and
child-molesters
(betcha didn't know about that one, did ya?!)
Peter Mackay
> d'geezer wrote:
>
> > Hunter wrote:
> >
> > Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you a government agent desperately
> > trying to salvage his mission. If he reports back that we didn't fall
> > for it he is in serious trouble with his superiors. Now what ever shall
> > we give him to report. I know: We don't fall for your BS for a moment
> > government shill. d'geezer
>
> Maybe if he'd only killed 12 people, he'd be guilty? Maybe if he'd only been caught
> with the two dead bodies in the burning house, he'd be guilty? Maybe if he'd only
> chased and shot the child and no adults, he'd be guilty? Maybe not, eh?
>
> How is mr Irving, anyway?
Indeed. I am puzzled how otherwise intelligent people could seriously
believe that Martin Bryant was framed in a government plot to bring in
tougher firearm legislation. To do so is to believe that thousands of
officials are so corrupt as to violate their oaths to the extent that
they participate in the murder of 23 innocent people for zero personal
gain.
The evidence in support of the theory is laughable. Half-truths and
shadows and grassy knolls. Look folks, I've been in the Broad Arrow Cafe.
It's about the same size as a good-sized living room. A child with a
water pistol could shoot everyone in it dead between the eyes from a
range of a few paces.
--
Cheers! Peter Mackay
peter....@bigpond.com
personal opinion only
Hunter
> "Hunter" you sick little fuck, you're failing badly in your 'mission' which
> in your case is merely to type disinformation for a few hours a day, can't
> you even get THAT right?
Oh dear, I'll go and talk to Adolf who we have in cryogenic deep freeze for when
the Illuminati gain open control of the world again shall I?
>
> Geez, you probably have fantasies of being a MIB don't you.....
No, I'm just pulling the shit out of your laughable fantasies. You've never
heard of sarcasm have you?
> sad, and really all you get is that small windowless office in a grey
> building and no real life to speak of.
It's on Mars too!
> You'll take up smoking soon
> enough....as Dean Adams...he chainsmoked.
Did he meet Elvis last year too?
But seriously (a concept you obviously don't understand with your paranoid
delusions), give me 1 fact that points to Bryant's innocence, with proof. Not
Vialls said this, and Vialls said that. Can you do that?
Hunter
> Hmmm...I see that Hunter is receiving 'logistic' support due to his crass
> ineptitude even at a simple desk-bound job.
I give what I get, you give me a reasoned fact or argument, I'll reply to it, if
you regurgitate Vialls stuff word for word, without any supporting evidence or
facts to his claims, then you're not really giving me much to answer are you.
(Careful we bugged your phone).
> Hiya Damian, so as to save us all time (I know you don't want that but
> that's irrelevant here) fuck off to deja news and catch up on this thread,
> then be so kind as to respond to the individual points I mentioned wrt to
> the Vialls theory of Port Arthur.
But Damian may want to wait for those points to be supported by some substance,
as I asked you in another post. Just one, supported by any sort of proof besides
"my hero vialls said..."
> AFTER which we can start conversing on a more mature level, and UNTIL which,
> you'll just be treated like your misinformation buddy Hunter ok?
Yep, we're both in the ministry of misinformation (careful, we know what you do
to little boys! We can prove it! Just like me being a govt agent and Bryant
being innocent.)
> See, the thing you have to realise is that propaganda is actually quite a
> sophisticated thing and if we're to leave it to bottom of the rung employees
> like yourself, well, it would just go to shit see?
Yep, Port Arthur was all a UN backed Psyop... At least this thread is more
entertaining in its' lunacy than some of the other insane threads floating
around recently.
> So consider people like me as training for people like you ok? And feel free
> to send me part of your salary too. After all, I AM providing you with a
> service.
No you're not, if anything you're a detriment to my job. You're so funny I'm
sitting here typing out a reply when theoretically I should have left 15 minutes
ago. (Oh wait, that's right, errr, yep, they're giving me my first ray gun after
I finish this thread. Be careful, we have a camera in your treehouse.)
jimbo
>In article <38FC04DC...@thehelm.com>, vag...@thehelm.com says...
>> d'geezer wrote:
>> > Hunter wrote:
>> > Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you a government agent desperately
>> > trying to salvage his mission. If he reports back that we didn't fall
>> > for it he is in serious trouble with his superiors. Now what ever shall
>> > we give him to report. I know: We don't fall for your BS for a moment
>> > government shill. d'geezer
about bryant.
>> Maybe if he'd only killed 12 people, he'd be guilty? Maybe if he'd only
been caught
>> with the two dead bodies in the burning house, he'd be guilty? Maybe if
he'd only
>> chased and shot the child and no adults, he'd be guilty? Maybe not, eh?
>> How is mr Irving, anyway?
>Indeed. I am puzzled how otherwise intelligent people could seriously
>believe that Martin Bryant was framed in a government plot to bring in
>tougher firearm legislation.
yeah? There's no puzzle at all when you consider the traitorous
antics of those scumbags in Ca[nazi]berra...let's start with
the 2000+ secret UN treaties they've signed.
And other bits of traitorous legislation like: The Australia Act
Then, we've got: MAI, FSIA,GATT agreements,privatisation of
public assets....want me to go on, Mr Ex-Canberra Correspondent?
Who do you think foots the bills for the Laborals these days,
Mr Ex-Canberra Correspondent?
>To do so is to believe that thousands of
>officials are so corrupt as to violate their oaths to the extent that
>they participate in the murder of 23 innocent people for zero personal
>gain.
Not thousands at all, Mr Erstwhile-Canberra Correspondent.
It's quite easy to believe(....just as easy to believe as David
Ettridge is an Effin' CROOK!)
The actual incident need only involve a small team, and a few
compliant media hacks. It simply snowballs from there....
>The evidence in support of the theory is laughable. Half-truths and
>shadows and grassy knolls. Look folks, I've been in the Broad Arrow Cafe.
>It's about the same size as a good-sized living room. A child with a
>water pistol could shoot everyone in it dead between the eyes from a
>range of a few paces.
Therez plenty of evidence...both of _omission_ and _commision_
if u'd care to read Viall's material at:
http://www.overflow.net.au/~nedwood/portarthur.html.
Naturally, u haven't. Why? Because, despite yr former One Nation
Party allegiances, you must still be labouring under the delusion
that the media in this country can be trusted to tell the truth!
Chris G
jimbo wrote in message <38fb...@news.alphalink.com.au>...
>jimbo wrote in message <38fa...@news.alphalink.com.au>...
>>The implication is clear......they _may_ exist but their presence is
>>incidental/minuscule. Compared to the virtual non-existence of such
>>crimes in the 1950s, we are now CHOCK-A-BLOCK with them.
>>If we got much more, we'd be _OVERFLOWING_
>>Get it?!
>]Oh,so now you admit the incidence of such crimes in miniscule. Great. I
>]don't have the crime levels for 1950 on hand but generally, as populations
>]grow, so does crime.
>
>We're not talking about _crime_...we're talking about crime _rates_.
>As in: murders per 100000;assaults per 100000;robberies per 100000;
Then why post graphs that are not based on crime rates!? Doc24 is not based
on rates. It is based on total number of unlawful entries, as is the other
graph.
>There is no evidence that increased population means increased crime
_rates_
When you cram more people into a space, usually you would expect a higher
level/rate of crime. Do you disagree?
>
>]I agreed with your ABS figures... armed robbery has increased
>]dramatically. Unfortunately, that is not within the realms of this thread
>as it
>]clearly states these are personal crimes, not property crimes.
>
>A property crime _becomes_ a personal crime when the burglar decides to
>escalate
>the level of violence....then you have a _property_ crime _and_ a
_personal_
>crime.
Yes, but these crimes are listed in the "other" section under break ins, ie.
21%.
>
>]Don't try and run away by pretending to miss my point, you know exactly
>what I
>]mean. The graph pre gun grab has a curver IDENTICAL to the curve after the
>]gun grab. The gun grab did NOTHING to that graph's ROI.
>
>Well, thatz just crap for starters!
> You can get a better picture here:
>http://www.ssaa.org.au/UNLAWFULENTRY9697STATS.HTML.
That's not a better picture, it's a different picture. Doc24 is 95-98. The
buy back scheme was in 96. The curve in 95 is identical to the curve AFTER
96.
The new graph shows that the ROI was less in 1994.
>Of course, u'v actually dodged the issue again, haven't u?
Are you a parrot? Do you have to repeat everything I say to you? Is this
your only effective way of making comebacks?
> If the Gun Grab
>had to have a positive effect, we'd say a curve levelling out
>like this: ________________ right?
>Or even a 'negative' curve like this: \
> \
> \ Right?
>
>Do we see that? Of course not! We simply see, at best,
>the same ol' increase.
Exactly, the same old increase. I've never said the gun grab worked. But
your graph shows it did not make anything worse, crime-wise. The only bad
thing is that you can no longer go and purchase SA & FA rifles, SA and pump
action shotties. The gun grab was a waste of time, it was a political
stunt. Johnnie even admitted it wouldn't stop another Port Arthur (though
with a low volume magazine for a bolt action, I can't see you popping as
many people as you could with a nice 30 round clip from an AR-15).
>So, yr statement:
>"The gun grab did NOTHING to that graph's ROI" is clearly so much
>codswallop! Sorry!
Alright, I concede. Damn, that HUGE leap in the ROI of 0.02%. I dunno why
I didn't spot that with the naked eye! Maybe because it's as significant as
a fleck of dust?
>
>>>]DUH! Look at your graph. The rate of increase has not budged, has it? >
>>Have you got a vision prblm or something? There is
>>a _clear_ increase....quite a steep one, in fact!
>
>]Go and look again! 1/3 of the way up is gun grab. Do you know what an
>]equal rate of increase is? It means, the rate of increasing crimes is
>]EXACTLY THE SAME before and after the gun grab. The graph even shows you
>]where gun grab is! For fuck's sake!
>
>Well: yr clearly wrong! As the calculations above demonstrate.
They demonstrate you wasted your time... 0.02%.
>
>]Then explain why 93/94 is nearly as high as 95/96? Also, what is the real
>]increase % taking into account population changes in Victoria?
>
>Let's ask rather: how come the post-Gun Grab rates are clearly
>_increasing_ instead of decreasing?
Jimbo, you're wasting your time! You assume that everyone you argue with is
an extremist anti gunner! I'm not, I'm somewhere in between - I believe all
guns should be available, however, the more dangerous ones should be harder
to access and have more restrictions on them. We do not want a US situation
here (or I don't... you may).
>We may also ask: why did the rates drop in 1994/1995 and increase
>dramatically from 1996 onwards?
They increased from 1995 onwards, which was one year before the gun buy back
scheme.
>
>>So:the most violent crime(with firearms) that the Gun Grab was
>>'intended' to prevent(actually, the likes of PM Howard never claimed that
>>the
>community would be safer because of the Gun Grab anyway....
>>http://www.ssaa.org.au/quoteozpm.html )
>>has_increased_, if not substantially, at least significantly.
>
>]Duh, I know what he said. I know the gun grab was a complete political
>]sham.
>
>Amazing!
So quit trying to convince me!
>
><snipped remainder dscssn of Herald-Sun stats & assctd notes!>
>
>]Guns are not removed from the black market though.
>
>...and never will be. And, so, we all now know(don't we?) That crims
>will always be able to get guns and that Gun Grabs increase crime not
>decrease it.....as we have now demonstrated ad nauseum!
>(Just checking on that!)
I agree it will not decrease crime. I'm not sure what happened to other gun
related crimes though, like domestic disturbances which resulted in the use
of a firearm, suicides with a firearm (though you have to check if they
stopped using firearms, they may have just jumped off a bridge!) etc.
Are you going to put the increase of 0.02% ROI solely on the gun buy back
scheme? Is there anything to back that up?
>
>]Meaning they do not need firearms, as their victims are less armed.
>
>Pssbly...but a crim or a thug will exploit any advantage.
They can use a bat though and still come out on top, if they know their
victim is less likely to be armed.
>When they know there is a high probability their victims will be unarmed,
>they will arm themselves to ensure 'overwhelming superiority'
Then why, when we had more guns in the population, did criminals use LESS
weapons? Did they wish to be overwhelmingly inferior at this time?
>
>]That's not what "that is" at all. If there are MORE guns available to
>]criminals, and LESS guns available to the victims, the criminals DO NOT
>NEED to
>]use the excess guns because there is LESS RISK for them when they go to a
>]commit a break in. Get it?
>
>They won't go and commit break-ins _at all_ if the
>house-holders are _armed_, irrespective of whether _they_
>have guns or not!
But there were break ins prior to the gun buy back, and they were also
increasing (pre 1995 they were increasing at a slower rate).
> That's according to Kleck's research!
>
>>Does the same argument wash with cars? Motorbikes? Chain-saws?
>>Skateboards?
>
>]It should. Car licences should be much harder to get and require defensive
>]driving courses.
>
>And, guvmints'd be voted out of office so fast their
>heads'd spin _backwards_
Well they bullshit on about road safety and tax us with speed cameras. If
we could all drive properly, the motorways could be used for the speed they
were designed for (ie. 1970s cars @ 130kph). If that happened, they
wouldn't make as much money from speeding taxes, as few people would need to
exceed 130kph (it is perhaps in excess of the 85th percentile).
So, they fuck us that way as well, and it will probably never happen.
>Unfortunately, there's about 3-4 times as
>many car-owners as gun owners.
>I think it wuz 1-in-4 households with a gun.
>But it's 2 cars-per-household.
>U don't go playin' funny buggers with that sort of voting block.
>(Hmmm..might explain why they can't institute Gun Grabs in the US!)
Or that kind of revenue (from cameras).
>
>>]Did you get your gun taken from you?
> > >I sold it before the Gun Grab. Post-Gun Grab, and with the new
>draconican
>>restrictions,I couldn't be bothered re-applying(especially when they
>introduced a 10+ pg
>>application form in Victoria)
>
>]Oh no, not a whole 10 pages! If it's too hard, fill out 1 page per day.
>
>It's not the nmbr of pgs,it's the information they
>want(over and above the basics...name/address/marital status/date birth)
>that I happen to think they're _not_ entitled to.....especially when it's
>gunna disappear into some cop database and, from there,
>who knows.......
Oh I forgot you're one of those paranoid, scared shitless of the Govt.
types. Even if the Govt. did turn bad, our pissy little army wouldn't know
where to start suppressing us civilians. How many police/public servants do
you think, in this country, would support a Govt. gone dictatorship? Not
many. And the good ol' UN would -eventually- put an end to it, because as
we know, everyone has to do things the good and proper way (their way).
>
>]LOL! So you're telling me the following: -
>]people can anticipate when they will be attacked - it's
>]better to not get one at all and be exposed forever to attack, than wait
>]several weeks and risk only a few weeks
>
>No...I'm saying most people don't need one until there's a _realistic_
>threat of attack.
And when would these people suddenly become aware that they were going to be
picked for robbery? There's no realistic way to assess the level of threat
for unlawful entries. If they live in a shit neighbourhood, they'd already
know it.
> I'm also saying that if they _did_ get one _now_
>for the purposes of fending off an attack, they may end up finding
>themselves in more (legal)trouble than the attacker!
Which is why you shouldn't be so keen to pull the trigger! You have to be
careful.
>]the frequent media stories concerning bashed-up old age pensioners. Yes,
>these people are cowards, but it's not the norm. It's in the 21%
>]category.
>
>21% is a significant enough minority of burglars to make you worried
>....or should be!
Ah well, why didn't you just say this BEFORE!? Did I have to argue with you
that long to make you understand? But at least you get it now.
>]The media has a frenzy with different types of crimes in different
periods.
>]They'll overly report on say, home invasions for a while, and thenstart
>]putting them back in the little "briefs" column when they think their
>]readership is sick of hearing about it.
>
>The electronic/prime time media, sure!
No, print! "Briefs" appear in newspapers (and I guess electronic but I
never read that).
> But these incidents
>were also extensively covered in the print media; by
>serious(or purportedly 壮erious'!) broadsheet newspapers and
>weekly news- magazines like 禅he Bulletin'
>So....it _was_ actually happening and with enough frequency to
>have a lot of people in those areas worried!
Or it made them worried - thus created more newsworthiness, which is what I
am trying to say.
>>]Most journalists know shit-all about guns and have no interest in them.
>>They may know 'shit-all' about guns, but they sure as hell have an
>>_interest_ in them....as evidenced by the SHIT they tipped on
>>gun owners and shooters post-Prt Arthur. Or are u gunna
>>actually deny that?
>
>]No,of course they did. It's newsworthy and gets people razzed up (like
>]you). So everyday, people like you and the anti-gun people go off and buy
a
>]paper to see what's being said. You think they actually have something
>]personal against guns. Maybe the columnists do, but the rest are just
>]trying to impress the editor.
>
>Well.....we're not actually talking about junior
>reporters, or even regular/staff reporters.
>We're talking about journos/contributors who write the
>major opinion pieces(exmpls: Gerard Henderson,Phillip Adams,
>Tim Colebatch, Margo Kingston) and the editorials.
They still have to make an effort to juice each situation for its
newsworthiness, as you well know, papers are controlled by people wanting to
make money.
>
>]Move to the US. Others don't want a replica US here. And if our social
>]problems get worse (I partially blame all the litigation crap parents and
>]teachers get hammered with, thus allowing their kids to grow up as
>]irresponsible no gooders!) widespread gun ownership could get bad for us.
>
>[i]Why should i move to the US? I was born here, worked here,
>paid taxes here, had family here.
You want the US in Australia. Most Australians want the US to stay where it
is.
>No...it's the politically correct thugs, anti-gun loons and traitorous
>pollies who'll be moving...
Those people are not specifically US or Australian, so there's no point them
moving at all. The US already has their own of those types.
>Not me, or people who share similar beliefs
You share US beliefs. You talk like a yank. You'd probably love it there.
And if you go to Texas, you'll take great glee in being able to shoot as
many unarmed and fleeing perps as you want!
>]Nearly. Why did mentally unstable types like Bryant have access to
>]firearms? The sensible thing that should have been done by the Government
>was
>]not the outrightly ban guns, but simply place tighter restrictions on
>]those allowed to own a gun. This is what I would like to see happen, with
>the
>]reintroduction of the guns we had taken from us.
>
>See the stuff posted up on the other thread concerning Prt Arthur.
>There is now considerable doubt that Bryant even owned a gun or,
>that if he did, he could have used it effectively.
Oh that... why don't you blame the UN?
>]I want those guns back, albeit under more restrictions, but what you're
>]saying isn't true. Gun ownership is fine, however, letting anyone buy a
gun
>]allows the loons in, and then we have unstable fuckers using their legal
>guns
>]to mow down their family etc.
>
>You can't pick 鼠oons' anyway. Someone could legitimately qualify for
>a gun and then go 鼠oony toons' later.
Of course. But cutting out ex-cons and known unstable types reduces the
risk of accidents in the future. It does not eliminate accidents.
> And not _anyone_ can buy a gun....
>Just like they couldn't pre-Gun Grab. You had to be over 18 for starters.
>But, the argument doesn't hold up...._anyone_ can buy a car. Why
>can't anyone(of adult age) buy a gun?
I've already talked about cars, and I don't agree with how easy it is to get
a licence. Not anyone can get a car licence, though it's pretty close to
that. I think it's craphouse. Licences should be much harder to get for
cars. They should also be difficult to get for guns. Being of adult age is
surely not a good enough requirement to be able to get a licence and buy and
use a firearm.
As to buying a car. You can buy one, but then you can only use it on your
property without a licence. You can't kill anyone else on your property
with your car. With a gun, you need to have a licence first otherwise the
entire idea of firearms licencing is made redundant. The licence is
designed so that once you have it, you can then go and buy one, not the
other way around. Much like a pilot's licence. You need to get one before
you can fly.
>
>]It's the only rational way to support the habbit. If they're not flogged
>]when they do the robbery, they're probably quite clear minded (especially
>if
>]they're heroin users... these people can live quite normal lives outside
of
>their
>]drug habit).
>
>Normal lives? You call doing burglaries and terrorising people
>on a regular basis a 創ormal' life?
>Sheeezzzzz....
You know what I am talking about. The drug does not effect their abilty to
act or think, outside of their shootup time.
>
><snipped stuff on burglars and KKK.....no possibility of rational debate
>here!>
That's right...
>
>>Maybe....but Marxists have brutally exterminated nearly 150 million people
>this century?
>]No, Marxists haven't done much killing. Communist Governments have done a
>]good deal of killing, but they've not really been Marxist, they've simply
>part-
>]modelled their economics on Marxist thought.
>
>Sorry.....it's Marxist thought thatz led directly to those killings.....go
>and
>read yr Lenin.
Marxism was ideology. The rest is twisted practice. Sure they planned
their economy. But what happened to the creation of leisure time? And
Marx's idea was to move from socialism (regulated by the Party), to
communism. Communism was supposed to exist as a classless society WITHOUT
evil Government's involved. Marx wrote in Das Kapital, that the government
would be dissolved during the transition to communism.
Of course, the people in charge were not about to give up their nice little
strangehold on Govt., so they gave Marx the finger wherever it suited them.
He was Marxism in action. And who do you think
>the 舛ommunist Government' got to do their killings for them?
>Their Marxist henchmen, of course!
No, State henchmen.
>
>]Your figure is also wrong. The figure is, in this century, all Governments
>have
>]killed 120 million people. You should know that, being an anti-govttype.
>
>The figure for the commies is pushing the 100 million mark, officially.
>(USSR, China, Nrth Korea &c)
No, WW1, WW2, USSR and China comprise 75% of this century's killings.
This page http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm is great for
statistics on death tolls and gives the listed reasons!!
The death tolls differ depending on the authors and what they include in the
tolls... authors are in brackets. I'll list worst to best figures.
WW1:
Military
TOTAL: 8,500,000 (everyone); 9,442,000 (Urlanis); 12,599,000 (Eckhardt)
Civilian
Brzezinski: 13,000,000 civilians
through to
Davies (Europe A History): 5,000,000
Best Scenario: 13,500,000
Worst Scenario: 25,599,000
USSR (Stalin's Regime): 20 million
As this site states, there are two sides: right wingers and left wingers,
and both like to exaggerate either larger or lower figures. The median from
the right wingers is 50 million. The median from the lefties is 8.5
million. This page states that the large figure is too high (1/3 of Russia
would have been wiped out) and that the low figure is too low (because it
falls shy of the actual atrocities that took place). The site states that
there is a consensus forming around 20 million.
The Famine figures are only covered accurately by Conquest, for the whole
period... the others offer only Ukraine or certain year figures which are
too small. The figure is 11 million.
Russia scores 31 million all up!
WW2:
General agreement, 50 million... best case: 41 million, worst case: 80
million.
China (Chairman Mao):
(includes Tibetan figures)
From 26 million to 72 million...
The page puts the medians between: 39.9 and 45.75
Total Killed from the big four:
Better Case Scenario
WW1: 13,500,000 +(best)
Stalin: 31,000,000+ (median)
WW2: 50,000,000+(median)
Mao: 39,900,000(best)
=
134,400,000
All Govt. killings in World Wars... 63,500,000
Commie Killings... 70,900,000
Worst Case Scenario
WW1: 25,599,000+(worst)
Stalin: 31,000,000+(median)
WW2: 50,000,000+(median)
Mao: 45,750,000(worst)
=
152,349,000
All Govt. killings in World Wars... 75,599,000
Commie killings... 71,348,000
If you read the extreme rightists you might get near or over100,000,000 for
the Communists. But then if you read the extreme leftists you'd be lucky to
reach 50 million. This site gives a good between figures.
>Ok...I took a few liberties. But, you can add on at least another five or
>six mlln, courtesy of yr Sth East Asias and various flavours of
>African jungle Marxists
Yes, and add N.Korea in here to, having about 1-3 million deaths.
>
>>How many have the KKK wiped out? A hundred? A thousand?
>>More like a few dozen, I'd say!
>
>]How many would they like to wipe out? You can closely associate Neo-Nazi
>]acivity with these types anyway, and then the figure gets up there if you
>include WW2's casualties. As bad as Communist dictators!
>
>Not quite! For a start, the WWII casualties were during
>a _war_ situation. The commies killed in cold blood during peace time!
The communists' killings weren't usually by the gun (although some
atrocities were). The biggest killers were Communist economics, which
allowed the deaths of millions of people!
The WW2 casualties (in Europe) were started by Nazis., but all of the other
slaughterings are easily blamed on Hitler. That same page approximates
35,000,000 (10-20 million democides - children, gypsies, Jews, POWS,
handicapped + 18 million civilian and 17 million military deaths in the
European war... 35 to 45 million).
>Also, the figures for the Nazis are in dispute and have been for some time.
>Many now doubt that the so-called 践olocaust' even happened
>(or, at least, that the figures were wildly exaggerated as part and parcel
>of
>war-time propaganda....not a view that I necessarily ascribe to myself,
> but there _are_ some worrying anomalies about the popular version
>pushed in the media!)
Yes but that argument is pushed by known Neo-Nazi supporters, ex-Nazi
supporters (officials), and other jew-hating types. Sure it may have been
embelished a bit due to propaganda, but most historians still point the
figure near the old ones.
>
>>Just fine thnx! And u? Howz it feel living in a state run by a bunch of
>scum?
>
>]You're a bit of a whacko aren't you? Come on, fess up.
>
>Wot the HELL are u then? U haven't been able to effectively
>refute anything I'v posted so far..
Of course not, in your mind anyway...
>>So, unless you voted Independent, that means that you voted either
>National, Liberal or
>>Labor(or Democrat!) IOW: yr a LABORAL supporter! And you wanna sit there
in
>front of yr
>>'puda and protest:"but I'm not PC" Methinks he doth protest TOO MUCH!
>
>]I voted Liberal actually.
>
>And yr the bloke sitting there saying, 選 wish we could get our guns back
>[even if there's a few restrictions]'
>Gimme a BREAK!
And you voted for the most idiotic, uneducated, policy-deficient party
available. Although this may surprise you, I do like owning a gun, but
there are a shitload more important things worth voting for. Shooting is at
best, a hobby. If that directs your vote on its own, there's something
terribly sad going on there.
>
>]What did you do, plan to blow up a polling booth?
>
>I voted One Nation Party, actually. And _proud_ of it...even if they
>came to grief later on (through no fault of the vast bulk of loyal members
>...of which I, also, was one!)
>I can tell you this much....there were a hell of a lot more decent,
>honorable and genuine people in One Nation Party than there ever were
>in that bunch of sycophantic, branch-stacking,
>politically correct nincompoops...the LABORALS!
Oh yeah, too bad the whole lot (supporters included) didn't add up to even 1
average brain's worth. It's so funny how totally prejudiced fucks like to
believe that they are decent people.
>]You seriously take rally numbers as a true reflection of wider Australian
>]preferences? There are more gun owners then anti-gun loons! What did you
>]think would happen? Most people couldn't give a fuck if guns were banned.
>
>...and a HELL of a lot did give a fk! How do we know this?
>By the subsequent election results in Qlnsnd, NSW, Victoria
>and Federal
No, the votes cannot be attributed solely to the ON gun policy.
>
>]Everyone I talked to, (except my friend and I) thought the gun laws were
>]reasonable!
>
>Really? And naturally they were appraised of the
>facts of the situation...including the ominous
>question marks hanging over the raison d'etre of the whole exercise...Prt
>Arthur??
>An uninformed opinion is just that....an opinion.
Who cares whether they knew shit or not? The fact still stands that most
people agreed with the gun legislation. I'm not arguing this point anymore,
because if you still disagree, your head must be firmly entrenched in your
arse pipe.
>
><snipped!>
>
>>And that's why we've got Gun Grab laws...because of media-brainwashed
>>schmucks like u who go along with every bit of CRAP Big Brother tells
>>'em!
>
>]But I don't you toss, which makes you look kind of silly, doesn't it!? I
>was
>]never happy with the gun laws being introduced, but then I couldn't
>]believe the Medical Association of Australia (GPs etc.) did not warn
anyone
>]about Bryant when they knew he had guns, and he was on medication. They
>were
>]at fault! There needs to be mechanisms in place to stop unstable
>]people getting access to guns.
>
>Bryant had little or nothing to do with Prt Arthur.
So now your conspiracy theory is a fact, eh?
>It's as well you acquaint yr-self with that fact before disputing
>others.(http://www.overflow.net.au/~nedwood/portarthur.html.)
>After all, it's wot this whole friggin thread is supposed to be about, u
>know!
Yeah, the guy is selling books! Why don't you buy an abroller while you're
at it? You'll become Arnie in just 5 mins a day! I also heard there are
some really compelling books on: NWO theories, fake moon landings, and
workers' accounts from inside area 51!
Oh and Pine Gap is a staging area for an alien invasion!
>
><snipped!>
>
>>Well..._U_ certainly don't seem to know much, judging by the tripe u'v
>>been wasting my time with over the last few days.....
>
>]Owning a gun isn't a political statement. It's a sport/hobby and will
later
>be
>]part of my profession. I don't start quoting the American constitution as
>]soon as I buy one.
>
>Pity that! It's documents like the US Constitution
American.
> and the
>1688 Bill of Rights
No longer applicable in Australia. Didn't help the British much either.
> that allow people to buy and keep guns, in the first
>place.
>Without them, we'd have to rely on the tender mercies of the
pollies.....and
>we
>all know wot _they're_ like, now don't we? Hmmmm..?!
Yes, we rely on them now.
>
>]Yeh,the best you could reply with was, "Those figures are false!".
>
>Uh huh! I notice u couldn't refute the official Japanese Government
>document relating to the incidence of handgun crime in Japan.
>How do you explain _that_?
The one where some guy states, hmmm I think those nasty Japs are covering
all their documents up! Yeah, that was really convincing.
So Jimbo, you think Japan has high rates like the US eh? LOL! They're
covering them all up! Again, talk to someone who's been to Japan.
>>]Very much a "basis" only, as we've evolved a fair bit since then. >
>>Ohh yeah? Guess when it 'evolves' into "murder is Ok" that will be
>>just fine and dandy, rite?
>
>]What's this blabber?
>
>Just this: if laws 粗volve', as you so
>quaintly put it(interestingly, borrowing a term from Mr Charles Darwin's
>long discredited and ludicrous 奏heory'!)
HAHAHA Nothing to do with anything we're talking about you halfwit.
>, wotz to stop the law on murder,
>at some point in the not too distant future, being:
>"it's perfectly Ok to kill people of 1.5 metres in height with red hair and
>green eyes"?!
Funnily enough, your PC thugs will come to the rescue of any immoral law
making.
>
>>]The morals aren't fiction now are they? The stories which bring them
about
>>]are... but it's good if it teaches people basic morals.
>> >If the stories are only that...stories...then the morals haven't any
>>real basis have they?
>]Of course they do. They're called parrabels. Stories which teach people a
>lesson.
>
>The parables have to have a solid basis in fact, OTW they're
>just fairy stories.
They do not have to be based on fact, and they do not resemble fairy
stories. They are simply reflections on a proper way of life, put into
storyform. They are an excellent way to teach people.
>Like warning someone about the dangers of working with
>electricity by using examples in the form of 壮tories'
Sure. Like every teacher has one of these stories, "Don't swing on your
chair, we've had a kid swing on their chair and break their back!" While
the story is false, it is probable that someone, somewhere, did just that.
And so you learn a lesson.
>
><snippo!>
>
>>Sorry...most of the stuff in the Bible is intended to be taken as literal
>historical fact.
>
>]Ugh. It's a religious interpretation of events. The people who take it as
>fact
>]are called fundamentalists,
>
>Translation: orthodox xians who actually believe the basis for their faith,
>the Bible,
>has at least some basis in fact(previously, the position of every xian
>church on the face of the planet)
Catholic priests (you know, the real form of Christianity) have changed
their tone somewhat since I started at school and since I last went to
church. Today's catholic priest is quite different from one of the 30s or
50s. Even they know that most of their parish are not complete idiots, so
the tone has changed and the Bible is not taken completely literally.
Whether you "believe" your faith or not is irrelevant. Belief and faith are
used when some or all fact is missing. That is the nature of faith and
belief. So how you can sit there and pretend your belief is fact, is
amazing!
>
>]and IMO, are fairly simple minded.
>
>Ever talked to one? U might find that _yr_ the one who's 壮imple minded'
>and unable to back up his 礎eliefs'
If I was simple minded, I would blindly follow a faith and assume it was the
correct one. I would believe in an unproven God without question. I think
you assume I am an atheist. I'm not. I'm agnostic, that is, until there is
proof either way, there's no point worrying about it. That is as objective
as one can be. Alternatively you can follow a religion that has no God
(Taoism, Buddhism), but you still have to believe in reincarnation etc. The
way I like to play it is to take the noble teachings from any of the
religions and apply them to real life. I do not have any religious
"beliefs".
>]As long as they live out good lives, I don't really care.
>
>Thatz Big of u!
>
><snip!>
>
>]The meanings are clear. The symbolism, miracles, "God said" bits, and
other
>]phenomena are superstitions and fabricated stories intended to teach.
>
>Nope they're not. They're intended as actual historical accounts of events,
>inexplicable by naturalistic explanations...IOW: _miracles_ Their truth
>hinges on the
>veracity of the other events in the particular chronicle.
>U really need to read C S Lewis on this particular topic if you ever intend
>engaging a _real_ xian(i.e: one that can effectively
>defend his or her faith) in anything resembling an intelligent
conversation!
No Christian or theologian can "prove" the existance of God. One can bury
their hand in their own arse and pretend they're right, but that's as good
as it gets. C S Lewis! hehe
By the way, I've argued this topic to death and it's really non-productive.
Literalists (and atheists) cannot see the rational side of things, otherwise
they would have no faith (to science or God) either way. As such, let's not
waste time.
>]Anyway, you're entitled to your faith. It's not my place to question your
>]beliefs, but don't expect me to take your literal interpretations of the
>bible
>]seriously, because I cannot.
>
>There is no other way to take the Bible _except_ literally.
HAHA Whatever you say Jimbo :)
>Obviously, there are poetical, allegorical and figurative parts of the
>Bible.....
Yes...
>but those are minimal and easily recognised as such.
true.
>Like any book that purports to be fact, you either accept it in its
>entirety or reject it _outright_
>There is _NO_ middle ground. It must be either True or False!
The common argument of literalists, and also the giving point to me where I
call them simple minded. If you have to take the Bible as true or false,
then it is because you are discounting the context, the style, the origin,
the purpose, and the people involved in and around the time it was written
(and compiled... later by the Holy Roman Empire).
>
>>]You don't like chardonnay? >
>>...just the type of people who usually drink it!
>]So you never have a glass of chardonnay? Poor bastard! I have some cheap
>shit
>]in the fridge, goes down well with a bowl of chips!
>
>Nope...I'm a James Boag's Premium Export Lager drinker, meself!
That's good beer.
>
>>]Err no. If you knew anything about the era, you'd know the Communists
used
>>]agrarian politics, and because the people liked their ideas, they joined
>>the
>>]Communist's side. The done thing was to send one or two men into a town
to
>>]show the peasantry how the systems would work. >
>>Who taught that you crap? Yr politically correct, femi-nazi teachers?
>>Ever heard of the Kulaks?
>
>]BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA You
>]don't even know how Mao got support! HAHAHAHAHA And
>]goddamn you go on with some shit... "politically correct this",
>]"femi-nazi that"... to anyone who has a clue. Look up, "The Search For
>]Modern China." This is book is currently the most accurate depiction of
>]China from 1550 to present date. In fact, before you crap on anymore about
>]China, buy and read this book because your ignorance is irritating,
>]especially when you think you know what you're talking about... hahaha
>
>I see. Wot part of Chinese history don't u rckn I understand?
Well for a start, you do not know how Communism popularity spread, as you
displayed above.
>The bit where Mao murdered about 50 million?The Cultural Revolution?
A high school kid knows about that. Shit, you could have read a special
article in a paper about that.
>Perhaps _you_ should read some cold, hard factual accounts on this
>yrself? Start with the Encylopaedia Brittanica!
Jimbo, what are you saying mate!! I've read the most up to date book on
modern China (over 800 pages), got a high distinction in a modern China
class, and you're pointing me at the Encylopedia Brittanica? What about
Encarta? I hear they offer nice little summaries too :)
>
>]You're insane! That's got nothing to do with what you're talking about. If
>the
>]cops aren't being trained properly, than the Academy failed. Cops are
>]people, not robots.
>
>"As the streets became more dangerous, the police on the beat were
>becoming less experienced.
[snip]
Like I JUST said. Blame the institution, not the cops themselves.
Chris