The Black Vault

Son of Sam used a revolver ,your right,why yes he did ..
So ,i reckon digging up this material should shut down Obamas gun reform plan.. great work greeny
The Corvette idea will only back your arguement ,you guys are gonna go all the way with this kind of defence.
Youv'e convinced me

capricorn wrote:

chiselray wrote:The bottom line is ,if they aren't obtained in any way possible ,then they can't be used..

I'll quote what I said a few pages back

capricorn wrote:The Fact is that firearm technology exists; it cannot be un-invented. As long as there is metal working and welding capability, it matters not what gun laws are imposed on law abiding people. Those who wish to have guns, and disregard the law, will have guns. Gun Control clears a path for violence by criminals.

That is interesting ,but you forgot the main clincher ,one that most of you won't grasp because it is arguable in your eyes.
That is that when Guns like we are talking about are removed /banned/ they are generally a LOT HARDER TO OBTAIN..not Unobtainable but there is a blocker involved ,difficult ..
If it is difficult then it makes it harder and harder to achieve..
Examples , Automatic style gun bans in Australia + no automtatic guns shooting sprees in Australia since that reform law was made...see what happened to us ? you can't argue that some (and we have gun enthusiasts here ) have made an automatic style weapon and killed a group of people in a spree style killing ???

Was it the choice of weapons the issue in Port Arthur, or was their any impending mental issues? I think if you are honest you will have to say yes there was a very big mental issue. Not only did you ban assault weapons, you also banned certain shotguns, and require good reason given for obtaining a gun. You gave up a lot of rights because of one mans actions triggered by events that had nothing to do with the guns themselves. A soured business deal in which the Father killed himself over, led the son to find the people and kill them, along with 35 other people that day. I believe the way he killed all of them, it really was not material what the weapon was, he would have done exactly the same thing with the shotgun alone. Most all the victims were shot at very close range, where the kind of gun being military assault is really a secondary concern. Any head shot at pointblank range of even a .22 would have been just as deadly. Again it was not the gun the main issue it was the person behind the gun. The man in question with his Father, he actually stabbed him in a different location.

You may see your actions for this crime as a good thing, but what about all those who used shotguns for legal hunting, abide by all laws, now an entire country is paying for this. These measures were widely disapproved by the majority of Australians, you and Rath very well know.

Quote:

Community and Government Reaction

Main article: Gun politics in Australia
Australians reacted to the event with widespread shock and horror, and the political effects were significant and long-lasting. The Federal Government led state governments, some of which (notably Tasmania itself and Queensland) were opposed to new gun laws, to severely restrict the availability of firearms. While surveys showed up to 85% of Australians 'supported gun control', many people strongly opposed the new laws. Concern was raised within the Coalition Government that fringe groups such as the 'Ausi Freedom Scouts',[16] the Australian League of Rights and the Citizen Initiated Referendum Party, were exploiting voter anger to gain support. After discovering that the Christian Coalition and US National Rifle Association were supporting the gun lobby, the Government and media cited their support, along with the moral outrage of the community to discredit the gun lobby as extremists.[17]
Government-level opposition to the new laws was quelled by mounting public opinion and coercion by the Federal Government,[citation needed] which controls the bulk of State revenue.
Under federal government co-ordination all states and territories of Australia banned and heavily restricted the legal ownership and use of self-loading rifles, self-loading and pump-action shotguns, and heavily tightened controls on their legal use. The government initiated a "buy-back" scheme with the owners paid according to a table of valuations. Some 643,000 firearms were handed in at a cost of $350 million which was funded by a temporary increase in the Medicare levy which raised $500 million.[18] Media, activists, politicians and some family members of victims, notably Walter Mikac (who lost his wife and two children), spoke out in favour of the changes.
Much discussion has occurred as to the level of Bryant's mental health. It is generally accepted that he has a subnormal IQ (estimated at 66, and in the lowest 2% of his age group[19]) and at the time of the offences was in receipt of a Disability Support Pension on the basis of being mentally handicapped. Despite reports to the contrary, Bryant had never been diagnosed with schizophrenia, nor any major depressive disorder. Reports that he was schizophrenic were based on his mother's misinterpretation of psychiatric advice. Media reports also detailed his odd behaviour as a child. However, he was able to drive a car and obtain a gun, despite lacking a gun licence or a driver's license.[20][21] This was a matter which, in the public debate that followed, was widely regarded as a telling demonstration of the inadequacy of the nation's gun laws.
Bryant was assessed as fit to stand trial as a mentally competent adult. There were no indications that he could be regarded as criminally insane at the time of the offences; as he clearly knew what he was doing. See the M'Naghten Rules for more information.
After Bryant's imprisonment, several other prisoners boasted of their intention to murder him in jail. For his own safety, Bryant was held in near-solitary confinement in a specially built cell from his sentencing in November 1996 until July 1997.

chiselray wrote:

capricorn wrote:

chiselray wrote:The bottom line is ,if they aren't obtained in any way possible ,then they can't be used..

I'll quote what I said a few pages back

capricorn wrote:The Fact is that firearm technology exists; it cannot be un-invented. As long as there is metal working and welding capability, it matters not what gun laws are imposed on law abiding people. Those who wish to have guns, and disregard the law, will have guns. Gun Control clears a path for violence by criminals.

That is interesting ,but you forgot the main clincher ,one that most of you won't grasp because it is arguable in your eyes.
That is that when Guns like we are talking about are removed /banned/ they are generally a LOT HARDER TO OBTAIN..not Unobtainable but there is a blocker involved ,difficult ..
If it is difficult then it makes it harder and harder to achieve..
Examples , Automatic style gun bans in Australia + no automtatic guns shooting sprees in Australia since that reform law was made...see what happened to us ? you can't argue that some (and we have gun enthusiasts here ) have made an automatic style weapon and killed a group of people in a spree style killing ???

Why not use Mexico as an example of the effect gun control has on a society?

And even if you choose to use Australia as the example, your overall crime has continually risen.

Even if you make the guns A LOT HARDER TO OBTAIN, people who wish to have them, WILL STILL HAVE THEM.

For instance, have you ever tried to buy marijuana? I can tell you, its not hard to obtain... Um, at least that's what I've heard

capricorn wrote:Um, at least that's what I've heard

greeney2 wrote:Was it the choice of weapons the issue in Port Arthur, or was their any impending mental issues? I think if you are honest you will have to say yes there was a very big mental issue. Not only did you ban assault weapons, you also banned certain shotguns, and require good reason given for obtaining a gun. You gave up a lot of rights because of one mans actions triggered by events that had nothing to do with the guns themselves. A soured business deal in which the Father killed himself over, led the son to find the people and kill them, along with 35 other people that day. I believe the way he killed all of them, it really was not material what the weapon was, he would have done exactly the same thing with the shotgun alone. Most all the victims were shot at very close range, where the kind of gun being military assault is really a secondary concern. Any head shot at pointblank range of even a .22 would have been just as deadly. Again it was not the gun the main issue it was the person behind the gun. The man in question with his Father, he actually stabbed him in a different location.

You may see your actions for this crime as a good thing, but what about all those who used shotguns for legal hunting, abide by all laws, now an entire country is paying for this. These measures were widely disapproved by the majority of Australians, you and Rath very well know.

What are you on .. ( about ) The gun reform laws in Australia are not & never has been trivialised by the crap you get in the usa.

There is no right to bare armes in the Australian contitution.

Ergo ..... The ban on guns in 1997 had zero to do with somebody's mental health .... & had to do with stopping people to stupid & who lack the intelligence, & people who pose a security threat to Australia & Australia's way of life .... from ever getting a gun in the first place.

But i have no issue with the USA freely giving guns to any two bit psychopath or terrorist who wish to waste America's way of life from the face of the planet .........


Go ... keep your guns & supply them to whom ever you wish to .....

But don't for a second, try and re-write history by trying to confuses others as to why Australia introduced gun reform.

All you have done this entire thread is provide misleading facts about Australia's gun reforms for your own propaganda needs.

Australia introduced gun reforms to stop any further mass killing .... & to that end ...

After 1997 ( when the reforms where past ) gun crime fell over 50 percent in Australia ....

& sine the gun reforms where past in Australia in 1997 to stop any further mass killings ....... There has not been a single mass shooting in Australia since that day.

Success ...... wouldn't you say.

capricorn wrote:And even if you choose to use Australia as the example, your overall crime has continually risen.

Even if you make the guns A LOT HARDER TO OBTAIN, people who wish to have them, WILL STILL HAVE THEM.

For instance, have you ever tried to buy marijuana? I can tell you, its not hard to obtain... Um, at least that's what I've heard

There you go again Capricorn .... Why do you think that because more poor 3erd world immigrants from the USA, Spain, Italy, Ireland, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan & India ... ect ect move to Australia only to find that they are poor & unable to afford somewhere to live, so they resort to stealing food & milk, & committing welfare fraud to survive.


Thus increasing the overall crime rate along with people who drive over the speed limits, people who get to drunk out on the town & people who jay walk, & kids stealing lollypops ........ ect ect ..... ( all increasing the over all crime rate in Australia )


capricorn ....... Where in your inconceivable argument ..... does gun reform in Australia, & Australia's lower gun fatality's since the 1997 gun reforms. Have anything to do with Australia's overall rise in crime due to kids stealing lollypops & 3erd world immigrants stealing & committing fraud ect ect.


Please explain .........

greeney2 wrote:Was it the choice of weapons the issue in Port Arthur, or was their any impending mental issues? I think if you are honest you will have to say yes there was a very big mental issue. Not only did you ban assault weapons, you also banned certain shotguns, and require good reason given for obtaining a gun. You gave up a lot of rights because of one mans actions triggered by events that had nothing to do with the guns themselves.

Again ..... your talking about something you know nothing about.

Australia gave up a lot of rights .... what rights.

There is no right to own a weapon of mass murder in Australia. Gun ownership has nothing to do with rights, there is no right to bare arms in Australia.

greeney2 wrote:
[b][u]Much discussion has occurred as to the level of Bryant's mental health. It is generally accepted that he has a subnormal IQ (estimated at 66, and in the lowest 2% of his age group[19]) and at the time of the offences was in receipt of a Disability Support Pension on the basis of being mentally handicapped. Despite reports to the contrary, Bryant had never been diagnosed with schizophrenia, nor any major depressive disorder. Reports that he was schizophrenic were based on his mother's misinterpretation of psychiatric advice. Media reports also detailed his odd behaviour as a child.

Yhe ... but only after he got caught & his lawyers thought the insanity path would get him a reduced sentence.

greeney2 wrote:Bryant was assessed as fit to stand trial as a mentally competent adult. There were no indications that he could be regarded as criminally insane at the time of the offences; as he clearly knew what he was doing. See the M'Naghten Rules for more information.

See ..... he tried the whole im nuts let me off. But it didn't work because he could not show that he was insane or mentally ill. He was just a killer. ( and that's all )

capricorn wrote:

rath wrote: even foods are legislated & restricted

Organizations legislate and restrict rath... Like the FDA, FCC, etc... And they all suck.

So ....

That's what im saying .... the USA has already got restrictive laws, ... & guns should be no different.

Your all starting to sound like you did over healthcare ... USA is turning into a communist regime, by introducing socialist healthcare into the USA.

& when i pointed out the USA already has some of the most socialist governments in the world, .... RE:

Socialist run / State run.

Military
Fire Department
V.A Hospitals
Farming & Agriculture

ect ect

So you see ... your doing the same on gun laws too.

The USA has already the rights & powers to legislate on an aray of topics & issues, & Gun reform is no different.

Yes you have the right to bare arms. but where does the U.S constitution say anything about the type of guns. Or the caliber of gun.




Gun lobbyists can keep their hand guns, .... But everything else is up for grabs.