The Black Vault

greeney2 wrote:

capricorn wrote:We can talk about the kinds of guns are the worst danger, but the truth is statically the common .22 caliber kills more people than any other weapon, but today the assault weapons are the news of the day. Does anyone think that it this same individual did the same exact thing that day, but used a bird hunting shotgun, and a common .22 revolver to kill himself with, the results would be any less? It would probably be even worse, because you couldn't miss with a sawed off barrel and modify it to hold more than 3 rounds.

fact ......

Since Australia Banned all assault weapons from Australia in 1997. ( no loop holes ) an out right ban

Zero people have died in Australia via crimes involving assault weapons.

The Port Arthur massacre of 28 April 1996 was a killing spree in which 35 people were killed and 23 wounded, mainly at the historic[1] Port Arthur prison colony, a popular tourist site in south-eastern Tasmania, Australia.[2] Martin Bryant, a 28-year-old from New Town, a suburb of Hobart, eventually pleaded guilty to the crimes and was given 35 life sentences without possibility of parole.[3] He is now imprisoned in the Wilfred Lopes Centre near Risdon Prison.[4]

In 1996 35 people or more died due to gun related crimes involving assault weapons.

in 2012 ........... Zero people died from crimes involving assault weapons.

Id call that a fall in gun crime.



Fact is banning guns ... reduces gun crime. no if's or but's about it.

First of all rath, you may want to revise your quote above, greeney said that, not me. But in any case, I completely agree with it, so you might as well just leave it.

En-Lugal wrote:

DIss0n80r wrote:It's no more ridiculous than anything else the lunatics here at BV yammer on about. Most of the stuff I read here is laughable and offensive.

But you probably are offended by my saying that? Because honestly, almost all I see here is absurdity and paranoia. Hey, you think the aliens are behind the gay agenda? They want us to stop breeding and go extinct, so they're using gays to destroy us from within.

Typical Liberal, name-call and lash out when you've got nothing left to add to the discussion. You could just do the sensible thing and find somewhere else to post, if it bothers you so much. No, it's easier to whine about being oppressed because your juvenile antics got you a warning from John. That's all this is from you, a temper tantrum. If it weren't, maybe your comments would actually make sense, instead of being sensationalist and outlandish in nature.

Well said

rath wrote:No you don't because your still making the same mistake .... your miss interrupting the information based on a flawed understanding of the Australian facts & figures.

you mean misinterpreting?
All I am doing is regurgitating the same information from the website you sent me which shows the facts... and that is your country is increasing in violence despite giving up your guns. But you don't want to look at the facts, you just want to stick your head in the dirt.

rath wrote:fact ......
Since Australia Banned all assault weapons from Australia in 1997. ( no loop holes ) an out right ban
Zero people have died in Australia via crimes involving assault weapons.

you are just not getting it are you? You are completely missing the point. Thats great assault rifles are banned, good for Australia. However, your crime and murder continue to rise so does it really matter that they were not killed with a assault rifle? Sounds like you are ok with Murder and Death as long as it is not with an Assault Rifle.

Cars and Buses kill more people in one year than guns do, why not just ban Cars and Buses??? LOL!

Boo hoo, En-Loogie. Boo hoo.



The fact is that Conservative gun nuts cry crocodile tears for bullet-riddled children while fighting tooth and nail against the slightest attempt to strengthen gun regulation. They live in Paranoia Land and view everything through a haze of Liberal conspiracies.

The blood is on their hands.

capricorn wrote:Yes but the TSA hasn't even caught 1 terrorist

Yes, because terrorists know to not try a repeat of the 9/11 attacks due to the increased security. You'd find similar patterns in two chess partners, one of whom blunders once. That blunder will no doubt never happen again.

The TSA haven't thwarted anything,

LOL

How many terrorist attacks have occurred involving airplanes since 2001?

Ok, now you're just being absurd.

Ok, now you're just failing to understand a simple analogy.

You said that since the TSA has failed to prevent some people from carrying firearms on airplanes that somehow shows that the TSA is not effective. I am saying that an agency need not be 100% effective to be of great benefit to society. Besides, the TSA has been 100% effective in preventing 9/11-type attacks.

Yes, some people here don't seem to be very good at thinking.

Thinking can be a scary prospect.

Fear is the mind killer.

at1with0 wrote: Ok, now you're just failing to understand a simple analogy.

Indeed, your analogy was very simple. Unfortunately, it had nothing to do with what I actually said.

at1with0 wrote:You said that since the TSA has failed to prevent some people from carrying firearms on airplanes that somehow shows that the TSA is not effective.

Considering what it is they're trying to prevent, yes. So what you're saying is that a 9/11 style attack is acceptable every few months then? If responsible citizens hadn't pointed out these security breaches, that's exactly what would have happened. If these citizens had been less than upstanding, well. Of course it continues to happen and security risks that are pointed out continue to be ignored, while more stringent and ineffective measures continue to be added.

at1with0 wrote:I am saying that an agency need not be 100% effective to be of great benefit to society.

That might fly, pun intended, if we were talking about loss prevention at walmart or valet parking.

at1with0 wrote:Besides, the TSA has been 100% effective in preventing 9/11-type attacks.

Actually, law-abiding citizens have been 100% effective in preventing 9/11 type attacks.

Well as the story unfolds, the nature of this story has something else to consider, which is the pattern of this man, who probably has had serious problems from many years. Anyone can see the house he lived in was enormous, and only he and his Mother lived in it. Hardly anyone who wanted for anything, Mom got $240,000 a year in alimony, and lived on several acres of land, so the were not poor. With this huge house the son was obsessed with watching violent video games, down in the basement, and Mom said he had become very reclusive. She had considered having him committed and he found out about it. The mother bought the guns, not sure about the stockpile of ammo and big clips, if she also bought them. The issue is not having these particualar guns alone now, it has become an issue of parenting, and decisions of Mom who knew him best. She had every opportunity to see something coming and to do something to get any guns away from him, locked up, or trigger locks that he was not privvy to the keys for. She knew he was mentally imbalanced, and obsessed with these video games.

Everyone wants to point the finger at the weapons, but the focus has to only be on the mental condition, waiting too long for interventions, and his reclusive nature along with the violent games. Like I said before, the same thing, only done with what gun control will deem acceptable, a hunting shotgun would have been at least as bad if not worse. Even 100 rounds shot, many missed, but a shotgun blast doesn't miss much. It is not the choice of weapons being the issue, it is the other factors, which are also one of the common denominators to many of these mass murders.