OT>> Gun-law insanity in the US

[Ext User(atec77)]

On 24/07/2012 9:50 AM, D Walford wrote:
> On 24/07/2012 8:30 AM, atec77 wrote:
>> On 23/07/2012 10:54 PM, D Walford wrote:
>>> On 23/07/2012 10:00 PM, atec77 wrote:
>>>> On 23/07/2012 8:45 PM, D Walford wrote:
>>>>> On 23/07/2012 11:11 AM, atec77 wrote:
>>>>>> On 23/07/2012 10:53 AM, D Walford wrote:
>>>>>>> On 23/07/2012 10:33 AM, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That may be so but you can't ignore the fact that firearms are an
>>>>>>>>> easy
>>>>>>>>> way of killing especially when you consider that killing is what
>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>> are designed to do.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> People with guns kill, more guns = more deaths.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's pretty simple really.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't disagree but there are people with legit reasons for owning
>>>>>>> guns, how to go about making it possible for those legit people to
>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>> guns whilst stopping those that shouldn't is extremely difficult.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Daryl
>>>>>> The theatre disallowed concealed and open carriage , if that rule had
>>>>>> not been applied and patrons were in possesion the outcome would have
>>>>>> likely been very different
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A lot more people would have died in the cross fire.
>>>> wrong again ,a lot more would have lived
>>>
>>> That's nothing more than a wild guess, its possible someone could have
>>> shot him before he killed as many but its just as likely that the
>>> opposite could happen.
>>> Apparently his gun jammed or the carnage could have been much worse.
>>>
>>>
>>> Daryl
>>>
>> The reality is Dazza you can't repudiate the facts , historically over
>> thousands of incidences played out across the world if a gunman is shot
>> they tend to stop , if one of the people in the audience was armed the
>> would most likely have stopped this incidence early on with far fewer
>> injuries
>
> The fact you are ignoring is the "if", there is no guarantee that even
> if the entire audience was armed they could have stopped him before he
> did a lot of damage, he obviously took them by surprise and if his gun
> hadn't jammed he could have killed twice as many people before anyone
> could of reacted, they may have stopped him in the end but them being
> armed wouldn't do anything to stop him doing most of what he did.
>
>> Being shot hurts and stops people from continuing their chosen course
>> of action , or do you live in a special place where the laws of physics
>> are suspended ?
>>
> You are ignoring the physics, it was a well planned attack and according
> to the news reports he was wearing body amour that can easily stop small
> arms fire, he was armed with some sort of automatic weapon and anyone
> aware of "physics" would know that even an armed audience would have
> little chance of stopping him before he did major damage.
>
>
> Daryl
The reason the bloke stopped was armed opposition , hence an armed
person in the theatre would have stopped him dead
Now you can be sure I know a little more about this stuff that you who
by admission have no experience and I took the time to research it as
you could

--









X-No-Archive: Yes

[Ext User()]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 22:52:19 +1000, D Walford
<dwalford@internode.on.net> wrote:

>On 23/07/2012 9:52 PM, Krypsis wrote:

>> The problem is that Australia has a hell of a lot of coastline and very
>> limited resources to monitor it. It's not going to be rectified in my
>> lifetime, probably not my great grandchildren's lifetime.
>>
>
>No doubt correct and its never going to be easy but they could do better
>than they do now if they were given the resources.
>
>
>Daryl

Actually they have plenty of resources.
Customs...or their contractor Cobham Special Missions flys a fleet of
aircraft out of Broome, Darwin and Cairns equipped with some of the
best surveilance equipment in the world.
All shipping, small boat and aircraft movements are monitored and
tracked.

The only thing seriously wanting is full radar coverage of the top
end.
We have the Jindalee system but I'm not sure if it is used to track
small aircraft.
We are expanding ADS-B coverage to privide better tracking, routing
and TCAS capability but NOT expanding radar surveillance capability to
track aircraft which have the system switched off.




OzOne of the three twins

I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace.

[Ext User(jonz)]

On 24/07/2012 10:54 AM, Clocky wrote:
> Paul Saccani wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 20:45:30 +1000, D Walford
>> <dwalford@internode.on.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 23/07/2012 11:11 AM, atec77 wrote:
>>>> On 23/07/2012 10:53 AM, D Walford wrote:
>>>>> On 23/07/2012 10:33 AM, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That may be so but you can't ignore the fact that firearms are
>>>>>>> an easy way of killing especially when you consider that killing
>>>>>>> is what they are designed to do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> People with guns kill, more guns = more deaths.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's pretty simple really.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I don't disagree but there are people with legit reasons for owning
>>>>> guns, how to go about making it possible for those legit people to
>>>>> own guns whilst stopping those that shouldn't is extremely
>>>>> difficult.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Daryl
>>>> The theatre disallowed concealed and open carriage , if that rule
>>>> had not been applied and patrons were in possesion the outcome
>>>> would have likely been very different
>>>>
>>>
>>> A lot more people would have died in the cross fire.
>>
>> What a load of whore's piss, as the Swiss would say.
>
> There you go again, throwing logic and reasoning out the window.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Of course he will, such is his Modus operandi.....
>
>

[Ext User()]

On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 08:55:12 +1000, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

>**It's called "Stand Your Ground" law in the US. In several US
>jurisdictions, a civilian may use deadly force, if they believe there is
>a threat (to their life). The result is the death of the alleged perp
>and immunity from prosecution for the murderer.


Australia is similar in many aspects.
You are indeed able to use deadly force if you believe you are in
imminent danger of being killed.

Difference is we require a court to determine the facts in full.




OzOne of the three twins

I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace.

[Ext User(Trevor Wilson)]

On 7/24/2012 12:11 PM, OzOne@Crackerbox-Palace.com wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 08:55:12 +1000, Trevor Wilson
> <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>> **It's called "Stand Your Ground" law in the US. In several US
>> jurisdictions, a civilian may use deadly force, if they believe there is
>> a threat (to their life). The result is the death of the alleged perp
>> and immunity from prosecution for the murderer.
>
>
> Australia is similar in many aspects.
> You are indeed able to use deadly force if you believe you are in
> imminent danger of being killed.
>
> Difference is we require a court to determine the facts in full.

**And, in ALL cases of wrongful death, someone WILL be charged. They may
be released after however. The 'Stand Your Ground' law means that
charges may not even be laid by police. This is what initially occured
when Trayvon's murderer was first interviewed by police. It is an insane
law that makes murder legal. In fact, the US law encourages civilians to
kill, rather than warn, or wound alleged assailants.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Ext User(D Walford)]

On 24/07/2012 11:57 AM, atec77 wrote:
> On 24/07/2012 9:50 AM, D Walford wrote:
>> On 24/07/2012 8:30 AM, atec77 wrote:
>>> On 23/07/2012 10:54 PM, D Walford wrote:
>>>> On 23/07/2012 10:00 PM, atec77 wrote:
>>>>> On 23/07/2012 8:45 PM, D Walford wrote:
>>>>>> On 23/07/2012 11:11 AM, atec77 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 23/07/2012 10:53 AM, D Walford wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 23/07/2012 10:33 AM, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That may be so but you can't ignore the fact that firearms are an
>>>>>>>>>> easy
>>>>>>>>>> way of killing especially when you consider that killing is what
>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>> are designed to do.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> People with guns kill, more guns = more deaths.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's pretty simple really.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't disagree but there are people with legit reasons for owning
>>>>>>>> guns, how to go about making it possible for those legit people to
>>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>>> guns whilst stopping those that shouldn't is extremely difficult.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Daryl
>>>>>>> The theatre disallowed concealed and open carriage , if that rule
>>>>>>> had
>>>>>>> not been applied and patrons were in possesion the outcome would
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> likely been very different
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A lot more people would have died in the cross fire.
>>>>> wrong again ,a lot more would have lived
>>>>
>>>> That's nothing more than a wild guess, its possible someone could have
>>>> shot him before he killed as many but its just as likely that the
>>>> opposite could happen.
>>>> Apparently his gun jammed or the carnage could have been much worse.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Daryl
>>>>
>>> The reality is Dazza you can't repudiate the facts , historically over
>>> thousands of incidences played out across the world if a gunman is shot
>>> they tend to stop , if one of the people in the audience was armed the
>>> would most likely have stopped this incidence early on with far fewer
>>> injuries
>>
>> The fact you are ignoring is the "if", there is no guarantee that even
>> if the entire audience was armed they could have stopped him before he
>> did a lot of damage, he obviously took them by surprise and if his gun
>> hadn't jammed he could have killed twice as many people before anyone
>> could of reacted, they may have stopped him in the end but them being
>> armed wouldn't do anything to stop him doing most of what he did.
>>
>>> Being shot hurts and stops people from continuing their chosen course
>>> of action , or do you live in a special place where the laws of physics
>>> are suspended ?
>>>
>> You are ignoring the physics, it was a well planned attack and according
>> to the news reports he was wearing body amour that can easily stop small
>> arms fire, he was armed with some sort of automatic weapon and anyone
>> aware of "physics" would know that even an armed audience would have
>> little chance of stopping him before he did major damage.
>>
>>
>> Daryl
> The reason the bloke stopped was armed opposition , hence an armed
> person in the theatre would have stopped him dead

He killed 12 people and injured a lot more and that would only take a
couple of short bursts from an automatic weapon, by the time anyone had
realised what was happening it was too late even if every other person
in the theatre was also armed so you are completely wrong.
They may have shot and killed him after the fact but by then it was too
late.
You could argue that if he had known that his intended targets were
armed he might not have attacked that theatre but that's assuming he was
thinking rationally which doesn't appear to be the case and he could
have just as easily attacked elsewhere.

> Now you can be sure I know a little more about this stuff that you who
> by admission have no experience and I took the time to research it as
> you could
>
The only "research" possible in this case in news reports and you have
no more access to those than anyone else here.
I have owned and used guns including a pistol so I do have a bit of
experience.



Daryl

[Ext User(terryc)]

On 24/07/12 12:11, OzOne@Crackerbox-Palace.com wrote:

> Australia is similar in many aspects.
> You are indeed able to use deadly force if you believe you are in
> imminent danger of being killed.

Really? I understood that if you involked that defece then there had
better be clear concise evidence that you were actually in imminent
danger of being killed.


> Difference is we require a court to determine the facts in full.
I.e. you get charged and have to prove your innocence.

[Ext User(D Walford)]

On 24/07/2012 12:03 PM, OzOne@Crackerbox-Palace.com wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 22:52:19 +1000, D Walford
> <dwalford@internode.on.net> wrote:
>
>> On 23/07/2012 9:52 PM, Krypsis wrote:
>
>>> The problem is that Australia has a hell of a lot of coastline and very
>>> limited resources to monitor it. It's not going to be rectified in my
>>> lifetime, probably not my great grandchildren's lifetime.
>>>
>>
>> No doubt correct and its never going to be easy but they could do better
>> than they do now if they were given the resources.
>>
>>
>> Daryl
>
> Actually they have plenty of resources.

Seems like they need more.

> Customs...or their contractor Cobham Special Missions flys a fleet of
> aircraft out of Broome, Darwin and Cairns equipped with some of the
> best surveilance equipment in the world.

Young bloke who used to live across the road flew one of those for a
while out of Broome, he's now a First Officer with Jetstar.

> All shipping, small boat and aircraft movements are monitored and
> tracked.

Its a massive area to cover so it appears many still get through unnoticed.
>
> The only thing seriously wanting is full radar coverage of the top
> end.
> We have the Jindalee system but I'm not sure if it is used to track
> small aircraft.
> We are expanding ADS-B coverage to privide better tracking, routing
> and TCAS capability but NOT expanding radar surveillance capability to
> track aircraft which have the system switched off.
>
Its up to the Govt to decide if the cost is worth the benefit, seems
that at this point in time they don't think it is.



Daryl

[Ext User(Trevor Wilson)]

On 7/24/2012 12:50 PM, terryc wrote:
> On 24/07/12 12:11, OzOne@Crackerbox-Palace.com wrote:
>
>> Australia is similar in many aspects.
>> You are indeed able to use deadly force if you believe you are in
>> imminent danger of being killed.
>
> Really? I understood that if you involked that defece then there had
> better be clear concise evidence that you were actually in imminent
> danger of being killed.

**The reality is somewhat more 'rubbery'. In the last couple of cases
that involved people being shot 'in self defence', the dead were
actually trying to escape. The shooters were declared not guilty. They
were clearly not in any imminent danger, but the courts set them free
anyway.

>
>
>> Difference is we require a court to determine the facts in full.
> I.e. you get charged and have to prove your innocence.

**Incorrect. You get charged and the prosecution has to prove your guilt.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Ext User(CatharticF1)]

Jason James <5sfe22l@hotmail.com.au> wrote in
news:8a9885a1-f7db-41e3-9f82-b5b31a4dcded@googlegroups.com:

> On Monday, July 23, 2012 10:57:37 AM UTC+10, CatharticF1 wrote:
>> Jason James &lt;5sfe22lhotmail.com.au&gt; wrote in
>> news:1b44dd7c-6d6c-44b2-8f43-6471344ee708googlegroups.com:
>>
>> &gt; I used to have around 6 rifles before the Howard reforms, and at
>> first &gt; I resented them,..but when you get the details about the
>> Colorado &gt; theatre massacre and others like it,..you get the drift
>> that the &gt; nutters have to be denied gun-access.
>> &gt;
>> &gt; That guy bought 4 rifles including a 223 semi-auto with a 100
>> round &gt; drum-mag. He bought over 1000 rounds of ammo over the
>> I-net including &gt; 100 odd 12-gauge shells.
>> &gt;
>> &gt; Like is so often the case, a few bugger it up for the rest of
>> the &gt; genuine gun enthusiasts....
>>
>> First - and not trying to be incendiary - but it&#39;s borderline
>> inappropriate to consider this having ruined your fun of having a
>> gun.
>
> yes,.I'm starting to get your drift....
>
>>
>> Second, this isn&#39;t buggering it up, it is *one* of many reasons
>> why weapons shouldn&#39;t be considered a right or anything other
>> than exactly what they are: Their primary purpose is killing
>> machines.
>
> Not absolutely true: Plenty of people use their firearms for target
> practise, while others cull out inapropriate feral animals from
> Australian bushland.

There are some legitimate needs, they can be addressed and the weaponry
controlled outside that.

Target practice ain't one..

>>
>> Some people shouldn&#39;t have guns and exactly &#39;who&#39;
>> can&#39;t always be known.
>>
>> Good people can be subject to stresses or incidents that make them
>> snap or do something they regret. Their and the lives of the people
>> they affect would be better if they didn&#39;t have guns.
>
> The same can be said of people so affected, who own cars, knives, and
> virtually any heavy imple3ment.

No - that's not the case.
The incident in Aurora would not have been as horrific with a knife or a
candlestick holder. Even a heavy one.. :)

>>
>> My utopia is a society with no guns.
>> Some see it as the opposite.
>
> With all due respect, you are stereo-typing all of us who have e3ver
> owned firearms :-)

Point taken! Though some people do believe it's a 'right'. But whether
you believe that or not, the more who have them the others 'feel' the
pressure to get one and this suddenly primal 'need' creates escalation
paired with the fear of having them removed and terrorism and you end up
with the USA.

The example is clear and should be avoided.

>> The practical side of me still believes that the closer we get to the
>> former, the better.
>
> Cathartic, you need to take off your single-dimensional glasses and
> consider those who treat fire-arms as part of a sport and a collection
> of antiquities..

I might collect nuclear warheads for nostalgic reasons. Anthrax because I
like white powder. C4 because I hate digging holes and admire the
Mythbusters. Torture implements because I admire their design.

None of it would be OK!

I consider your and other people's interest in weaponry is unhealthy, and
worse dangerous to others. The risk is small, but across all -
significant and unnecessary imo.

There is no 'need' for you. Only a want.

--
CatharticF1

I can't resist no crossing signs

[Ext User(Fraser Johnston)]

On 21/07/12 2:17 PM, Jason James wrote:
> I used to have around 6 rifles before the Howard reforms, and at first I resented them,..but when you get the details about the Colorado theatre massacre and others like it,..you get the drift that the nutters have to be denied gun-access.
>
> That guy bought 4 rifles including a 223 semi-auto with a 100 round drum-mag. He bought over 1000 rounds of ammo over the I-net including 100 odd 12-gauge shells.
>
> Like is so often the case, a few bugger it up for the rest of the genuine gun enthusiasts....
>
> Jason
>

If a few more people had guns that massacre would never have happened.

--

Fraser

[Ext User(Fraser Johnston)]

On 22/07/12 6:02 AM, Jeßus wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 21:12:03 +1000, Noddy <me@home.com> wrote:
>
>> On 21/07/2012 4:44 PM, Jeßus wrote:
>>
>>> Doesn't alter my view on guns. I use rifles most every week, so you
>>> can guess what my view might be.
>>
>> I don't, but my view is probably the same as yours. Although I'd add
>> that I can't really see the need for civilians to own fully automatic
>> assault rifles.
>
> Agree with that, assault rifles are only designed for one thing and I
> know I have no interest in one.
>
> Having said that, I think all things considered, the amount of injury
> and death caused by guns in Aus is really quite insignificant compared
> to other things, such as heart disease or diabetes. Or road deaths.
> The hysterical reactions one gets just seems a little out of
> proportion to the reality to me.
>

Define assault rifle.

--

Fraser

[Ext User(Albm&ctd)]

In article <500de3bb$0$11122$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
dwalford@internode.on.net says...
> The fact you are ignoring is the "if", there is no guarantee that even
> if the entire audience was armed they could have stopped him before he
> did a lot of damage
>
They would have *riddled* that *joker* with holes 'till the black bats flew out
his asshole. He could have become a new character as..,
The Sieve... and if he didn't work properly the first time they could have
issued a restraining order :)

Al
--
I don't take sides.
It's more fun to insult everyone.

[Ext User(D Walford)]

On 24/07/2012 2:50 PM, Fraser Johnston wrote:
> On 21/07/12 2:17 PM, Jason James wrote:
>> I used to have around 6 rifles before the Howard reforms, and at first
>> I resented them,..but when you get the details about the Colorado
>> theatre massacre and others like it,..you get the drift that the
>> nutters have to be denied gun-access.
>>
>> That guy bought 4 rifles including a 223 semi-auto with a 100 round
>> drum-mag. He bought over 1000 rounds of ammo over the I-net including
>> 100 odd 12-gauge shells.
>>
>> Like is so often the case, a few bugger it up for the rest of the
>> genuine gun enthusiasts....
>>
>> Jason
>>
>
> If a few more people had guns that massacre would never have happened.
>
How so?
That could only be true if someone shot him before he entered the
theatre and had stared to fire.
Even if you are armed it takes a few moments to react so he would still
have done a lot of damage by the time anyone returned fire, he was also
wearing body armour so fire from small arms may have only slowed him
down a little if they managed to hit him at all.


Daryl

[Ext User(Trevor Wilson)]

On 7/24/2012 2:50 PM, Fraser Johnston wrote:
> On 21/07/12 2:17 PM, Jason James wrote:
>> I used to have around 6 rifles before the Howard reforms, and at first
>> I resented them,..but when you get the details about the Colorado
>> theatre massacre and others like it,..you get the drift that the
>> nutters have to be denied gun-access.
>>
>> That guy bought 4 rifles including a 223 semi-auto with a 100 round
>> drum-mag. He bought over 1000 rounds of ammo over the I-net including
>> 100 odd 12-gauge shells.
>>
>> Like is so often the case, a few bugger it up for the rest of the
>> genuine gun enthusiasts....
>>
>> Jason
>>
>
> If a few more people had guns that massacre would never have happened.
>

**Prove it.

In your proof, you may care to explain how the US manages to have the
highest gun related homicide rate of any Western, developed nation,
despite the fact that they are also the only Western, developed nation
that allows it's civilians to carry concealed guns.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Ext User(Albm&ctd)]

In article <a76d1rF38pU1@mid.individual.net>, trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
says...
> On 7/24/2012 8:30 AM, atec77 wrote:
> > On 23/07/2012 10:54 PM, D Walford wrote:
> >> On 23/07/2012 10:00 PM, atec77 wrote:
> >>> On 23/07/2012 8:45 PM, D Walford wrote:
> >>>> On 23/07/2012 11:11 AM, atec77 wrote:
> >>>>> On 23/07/2012 10:53 AM, D Walford wrote:
> >>>>>> On 23/07/2012 10:33 AM, Clocky wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That may be so but you can't ignore the fact that firearms are an
> >>>>>>>> easy
> >>>>>>>> way of killing especially when you consider that killing is what
> >>>>>>>> they
> >>>>>>>> are designed to do.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> People with guns kill, more guns = more deaths.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It's pretty simple really.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> I don't disagree but there are people with legit reasons for owning
> >>>>>> guns, how to go about making it possible for those legit people to
> >>>>>> own
> >>>>>> guns whilst stopping those that shouldn't is extremely difficult.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Daryl
> >>>>> The theatre disallowed concealed and open carriage , if that rule had
> >>>>> not been applied and patrons were in possesion the outcome would have
> >>>>> likely been very different
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> A lot more people would have died in the cross fire.
> >>> wrong again ,a lot more would have lived
> >>
> >> That's nothing more than a wild guess, its possible someone could have
> >> shot him before he killed as many but its just as likely that the
> >> opposite could happen.
> >> Apparently his gun jammed or the carnage could have been much worse.
> >>
> >>
> >> Daryl
> >>
> > The reality is Dazza you can't repudiate the facts , historically over
> > thousands of incidences played out across the world if a gunman is shot
> > they tend to stop , if one of the people in the audience was armed the
> > would most likely have stopped this incidence early on with far fewer
> > injuries
> > Being shot hurts and stops people from continuing their chosen course
> > of action , or do you live in a special place where the laws of physics
> > are suspended ?
> >
>
> **You, apparently do. Consider the instances where highly armed, highly
> trained soldiers have been shot in Afghanistan, by people who were on
> the same side. The facts are blindingly simple: The act of surprise can
> usually trump even the most heavily armed, well trained people. Arming
> civilins is insane public policy. The US is abundant proof of this
> public policy failure. Of all Western, developed nations, no other has
> as many civilians walking the streets, armed to the teeth. Yet the US
> has, by a very considerable margin, more gun related homicides per
> capita than any other Western, developed nation.
>
So the soldiers killed would have survived if they were not armed?

Al
--
I don't take sides.
It's more fun to insult everyone.

[Ext User(D Walford)]

On 24/07/2012 3:16 PM, Albm&ctd wrote:
> In article <500de3bb$0$11122$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
> dwalford@internode.on.net says...
>> The fact you are ignoring is the "if", there is no guarantee that even
>> if the entire audience was armed they could have stopped him before he
>> did a lot of damage
>>
> They would have *riddled* that *joker* with holes 'till the black bats flew out
> his asshole. He could have become a new character as..,
> The Sieve... and if he didn't work properly the first time they could have
> issued a restraining order :)
>
LOL:-)
The restraining order would have been just as effective.


Daryl

[Ext User(Albm&ctd)]

In article <a76ntnF5dpU4@mid.individual.net>, fraser@cjmanagement.com.au says...
> On 22/07/12 6:02 AM, Jeßus wrote:
> > On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 21:12:03 +1000, Noddy <me@home.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 21/07/2012 4:44 PM, Jeßus wrote:
> >>
> >>> Doesn't alter my view on guns. I use rifles most every week, so you
> >>> can guess what my view might be.
> >>
> >> I don't, but my view is probably the same as yours. Although I'd add
> >> that I can't really see the need for civilians to own fully automatic
> >> assault rifles.
> >
> > Agree with that, assault rifles are only designed for one thing and I
> > know I have no interest in one.
> >
> > Having said that, I think all things considered, the amount of injury
> > and death caused by guns in Aus is really quite insignificant compared
> > to other things, such as heart disease or diabetes. Or road deaths.
> > The hysterical reactions one gets just seems a little out of
> > proportion to the reality to me.
> >
>
> Define assault rifle.
>
It's probably just a big stick.

Al
--
I don't take sides.
It's more fun to insult everyone.

[Ext User()]

On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 12:50:10 +0800, Fraser Johnston <fraser@cjmanagement.com.au> wrote:

> If a few more people had guns that massacre would never have happened.

US, lots of guns in private hands, death rate per 100,000 was 4.8 in 2010.

Australia, nowhere near as many guns in private hands, death rate per 100,000 was 1.16 in
2010.

Both pale into insignificance when you look at Seth Efrica with 32 deaths/100,000 and
Honduras with 87/100,000.

[Ext User(Albm&ctd)]

In article <jul2hh$k12$1@dont-email.me>, newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au says...
> On 24/07/12 12:11, OzOne@Crackerbox-Palace.com wrote:
>
> > Australia is similar in many aspects.
> > You are indeed able to use deadly force if you believe you are in
> > imminent danger of being killed.
>
> Really? I understood that if you involked that defece then there had
> better be clear concise evidence that you were actually in imminent
> danger of being killed.
>
I think our laws are such, to be free of committing an offence, you have to be
killed first before killing an assailant. Mind you, if you went up against an
armed person who had a knife, gun or dirty plastic rubbish bin lid and you only
had a frozen banana and you won, you could probably be within the law and no
charges would be laid. Of course you would have to explain why you had something
as deadly as a frozen banana in your arse'n'all.

Al
--
I don't take sides.
It's more fun to insult everyone.