The Black Vault Message Forums

Discover the Truth!        

General Discussion Topics

Connecticut school shooting: 18 children among 27 dead

The Black Vault Message Forums has a considerable number of niche forums to place your post. If you can not find a home for it, and the topic doesn't fit anywhere else, then post it here.

Postby rath » Thu Jan 17, 2013 12:30 am

at1with0 wrote:
rath wrote:If you cant get the guns ... you cant kill anybody.


Are you really so naive as to think that a ban on anything will result in that thing being unattainable?

Even your statistics don't show gun-related deaths in Australia is zero.


We have done this already .... & your flogging a dead horse.

& You keep going on about how Australia's still got gun crime & about how Australia still has deaths from guns.

Well DER .......... because Australia did not ban all guns.

Hand guns are still available ....... If Australia wanted to ban all guns then Australia would have banned all guns .... But that's not what happened is it.
Know-body is trying to stop people from dying from guns. ....... that was not the point of the Australian laws.

Once again your ignorance is shinning through at1with0.

Why do you keep trying to make gun reform laws about your perceived interpretation that it's meant to stop gun related deaths.

Where did you ever get that idea from ....

Australia's gun reform laws where meant to stop any more nut jobs from getting a high powered weapon & going on a shooting spree.


& to that end.

The laws have been a great success ........ zero massacres in Australia sine the tougher gun laws came into effect.

We all know that sometime down the road there will be another mass killing in Australia ... That just comes with a rising population & more immigrants moving to Australia's prosperous shores.

But Australia is safer now ...... because the new immigrants from other nations who move to Australia & bring with them ... their hatreds & religious bigotry's. will have a tougher time of it ...... if they cant get a high powered rifle & go out shooting Christians in the street.

Unlike the USA ......... Australia has no interested in arming those people who seek to destroy our way of life.


But the USA can do as it pleases ........ Not my concern. :thumbup:
Image
rath
 
Posts: 4345
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby greeney2 » Thu Jan 17, 2013 12:48 am

rath wrote:
greeney2 wrote:Look who is Lying now!


Just face it Greeney2 .... you don't have any understanding of the Australian electoral system' nor the Australian electorate.

However the facts are the facts .... After John Howard was first elected to office in 1996 .... & he passed the gun reform laws in Australia in 1996-1997.

John Howard was re-elected another 3 times. at 3 more national elections in Australia.

Nobody who gets elected 4 times to the Prim-ministers office ( our version of your president ) can be seen as unpopular.

John Howard passed Australia's gun reforms in his first year as Australia's Prime-Minister ..... & yet he was re-elected 3 more times over the next 10 years.

Imagine if Obama passed tough new gun reform laws in his first year as president of the usa back in 2008.

If Obama passed gun reform laws in his first year as u.s president in 2008 ........ Do you think he would have been re elected again in 2012.

John Howard was elected by a national vote, 4 time .... Not once, .... Not twice .... But Four times.

(( you can try and spin this all you like. but you cant change the past. ))



That is another thing you are oblivious too, not having limits on the number of terms your President or PM can be elected. What does that have to do with the opposition to the gun laws when they were proposed? They were not a popular law.
greeney2
 
Posts: 9588
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby rath » Thu Jan 17, 2013 1:55 am

greeney2 wrote:That is another thing you are oblivious too, not having limits on the number of terms your President or PM can be elected. What does that have to do with the opposition to the gun laws when they were proposed? They were not a popular law.


:eh: :?

That statement makes no sense at all.

I know the U.S president is limited to just two terms in office ... ( the entire world knows that )

I also know that in Australia & other commonwealth nations the Prim-minister/President can serve multiple terms.

( the entire world knows that )

greeney2 wrote:What does that have to do with the opposition to the gun laws when they were proposed? They were not a popular law.


Because it shows you keep misunderstanding the facts or that you keep misrepresenting the facts.

You claim that Howard's gun reform laws where unpopular in Australia ...... :lol:

That's just wrong ( or your lying to try an spin the point ) ............ Howard was elected in 1996 ... he passed the gun reform laws in 1997 ........ the reforms where so popular .... That Australia voted him into office another 3 times over the next 12 years.

Now given that the USA only allows two term in office .... ( my question to you still stands ) if Obama had introduced these U.S gun reform policy's / laws in his first term in office ..... Do you really think he would have won re-election in 2012. :lol:


If a leader passes a law that is unpopular .... he/she will be voted out at the next election ..... Howard's gun reforms where not unpopular amongst 99 percent of the Australian public ......... He had almost 100 percent support for Australian gun reform laws ...


Ergo ... At the next Australian election ..... John Howard won by a landslide ........ Very very popular leader.

& as if that was not enough ..... John Howard would win another 2 election victory's ...... ( making it four elections in a row over 12 years As Australia's Prime-Minister.


So don't you think if John Howard Gun law reforms where as unpopular as you seem to think they where .... Then why was John Howard voted back into office again ... & again ... & again.

If John Howard 1996 gun reform laws where as unpopular amongst Australian's as your making them out to be.

Then why was John Howard not booted out of office at the end of his first term.

Why was john Howard elected for a second term ....

& then a third term & a fourth term.


Hmmm

:lol:
Image
rath
 
Posts: 4345
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby at1with0 » Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:30 am

rath wrote:Well DER .......... because Australia did not ban all guns.


You think that banning all guns would result in zero gun deaths?

Know-body is trying to stop people from dying from guns. ....... that was not the point of the Australian laws.

Know-body, huh?
"it is easy to grow crazy"
User avatar
at1with0
 
Posts: 9182
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: the coproduct of the amalgam of all structures

Postby rath » Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:40 am

at1with0 wrote:
rath wrote:Well DER .......... because Australia did not ban all guns.


You think that banning all guns would result in zero gun deaths?

Know-body is trying to stop people from dying from guns. ....... that was not the point of the Australian laws.

Know-body, huh?


That's right ...... Know-body in Australia ever made the claim, that passing gun reform laws would stop all gun related deaths from now until the end of time ......

& if you think otherwise ..... back it up with facts mate.

:lol:
Image
rath
 
Posts: 4345
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby greeney2 » Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:22 am

We have!
greeney2
 
Posts: 9588
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby rath » Thu Jan 17, 2013 11:17 am

greeney2 wrote:We have!


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Don't think so Greeney2. ( nice try tho )
Image
rath
 
Posts: 4345
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby rath » Thu Jan 17, 2013 11:25 am

Gun Owners of America outline opposition to gun controls on Australian T.V

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Broadcast: 17/01/2013

Reporter: Leigh Sales

As US President Barack Obama proposes sweeping new gun controls, there is still strong opposition to government intervention and greater firearm restrictions, as Larry Pratt from the Gun Owners of America outlines.

Transcript

LEIGH SALES, PRESENTER: America may be on the brink of introducing historic limitations to gun ownership.

President Barack Obama has unveiled reforms making it harder to get assault weapons, after a gunman killed 20 children and six teachers at a school last month.

But he'll face a tough battle to do everything he wants.

The powerful gun lobby is mobilising all its forces. Take a look at this advertisement from the National Rifle Association.

(excerpt from NRA advertisement)

NARRATOR: Are the president's kids more important than yours? Then why is he sceptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school?

Mr Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes but he is just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security - protection for their kids and gun-free zones for ours.

ONSCREEN TEXT: NRA. Stand and fight.

(end excerpt)

LEIGH SALES: Many Australians find the US gun debate hard to fathom given the success of gun reforms introduced here by the former prime minister John Howard after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996.

For insight into America's pro-gun mindset, I was joined earlier from Virginia by the president of the Gun Owners of America, Larry Pratt.

Larry Pratt, what do you think of the reforms announced by president Obama today?

LARRY PRATT, PRESIDENT, GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA, VIRGINIA: It's what we might have expected from someone coming from his point of view and what he's not at all discussing is the fact that the mass murders that have occurred in our country over the last 20 years have occurred in precisely the kind of gun-free zone that was legally in force in Newtown, Connecticut.

LEIGH SALES: Massacres have occurred all over the United States, from Virginia to Arizona to Colorado. It is inaccurate and misleading to say that they have only occurred in gun-free zones.

LARRY PRATT: These were places that occurred at schools which legally were gun-free zones, or the theatre in Colorado was the one out of some seven near where the murderer lived which was posted no guns, and so he chose exactly what he was looking for and I think we have to conclude that gun-free zones are like magnets for these people.

LEIGH SALES: Why would any civilian need a military-style assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine?

LARRY PRATT: They're not military style and they're not assault rifles. They are defence weapons. They've been used by Korean merchants when there was no public order in Los Angeles for days during the LA riots.

They were used following the breakdown of social order following Hurricane Katrina and average citizens have used them on several occasions when hurricanes in south Florida have simply imploded the normal order of society, police are nowhere to be seen for sometimes days on ends, and so people are on their own.

LEIGH SALES: What do you think will happen if the US government puts restrictions on gun ownership?

LARRY PRATT: Well, there are politicians that think that it's their job to rule us and it's our job to be ruled and it's kind of a basic impulse and that's why we continue to vote politicians out of office because they get a little full of themselves.

And particularly among Democrats, although not exclusively, we find a tendency to want to control guns because they just don't like the idea of an armed populace but of course our second amendment says that's exactly why we are supposed to have an armed populous, so that the Government is mindful that there's only so far it can go and the people can protect themselves against tyranny.

LEIGH SALES: But with this armed populace argument, if we take it to its logical conclusion, even if every American had as many weapons as they like, the United States government and its army is always going to have more weapons so therefore no matter how many weapons you have, you're still going to be defeated so therefore it's a spurious argument to make.

LARRY PRATT: Well, that remains to be seen. There have been confrontations before. Actually when we started our country we beat the army of the most powerful empire in the world and we beat them with, starting with our muskets.

We have reason to be concerned about our government because it's our government that was running guns deliberately into the hands of the Mexican cartel and the scandal that I'm sure you know of called fast and furious. It's led to the murder of some 400 Mexicans and counting, two of our federal agents, and so it's rather stunning that a government that would perpetrate such a monstrous crime is now telling the American gun owner, "You can't be trusted. We need to have more control over you." I don't think so.

LEIGH SALES: In Australia, the government reacted to a massacre in 1996 by banning the sale, importation and possession of semi-automatic rifles and by removing 700,000 guns from circulation.

In the 18 years before that we had 13 massacres. After that we had zero. We didn't have a civil war, the government didn't come and take all of our stuff away from us. Why not just give it a try in the US?

LARRY PRATT: Once you've given it a try there's no going back and so in the United States we're not going to do that. In the United States we are citizens in control of the government and as the Swiss say to this day, a rifle is the emblem of a free man.

LEIGH SALES: But it worked in Australia. Why not just try it?

LARRY PRATT: Your violent crime rate is not so admirable and besides...

LEIGH SALES: It's a lot lower than yours.

LARRY PRATT: We're not interested in being like Australia. We're Americans.

LEIGH SALES: Pro gun activists want to see armed teachers in schools but in chaotic situations, highly trained police officers shoot and kill the wrong people. In war zones, highly trained soldiers shoot their own colleagues in friendly fire incidents.

What makes you think that a primary school teacher is going to be able to take out a mad gunman without killing children?

LARRY PRATT: Well the armed teacher is going to have a lot more chance stopping a mass murderer than the police who take 20 minutes to get there, as they did in Newtown, and that's not an extraordinarily long response time. That's just the way life works and so to tell somebody that we think no defence is a good defence is morally indefensible and we're not going to tolerate that.

LEIGH SALES: There have been 62 mass shoots in the United States in the past 30 years. Not one has been stopped midway through by a civilian.

LARRY PRATT: The ones that did get stopped don't make the list of 62 now, do they?

LEIGH SALES: I'm saying that there has not been a shooting where four or five people have been shot and then an armed civilian has come in and started shooting and averted disaster.

LARRY PRATT: What you're saying is that you're not accepting the fact that some of the shootings that have occurred were stopped before they could become what qualifies as a mass murder, four or five people that have been murdered and that has happened fairly frequently.

It happened at a mall just three days before Newtown. In Clackamas, Oregon, near Portland, a man went into a mall that was marked "no guns" and he killed two people, wounded a third.

Another man, who had a concealed carry permit, was also in the mall, heard the shots, came running to the scene of the crime. Happily, the murderer's gun had jammed and he was just getting it un-jammed when the good guy with a gun got there.

When the murderer saw him approaching, he killed himself. End of problem. Never got to be a "mass murder" but it certainly had every look of something that was going to be a mass murder had not the good guy with a gun gotten there in time.

LEIGH SALES: Larry Pratt, thank you so much.

LARRY PRATT: Good to be with you. Thank you.
Image
rath
 
Posts: 4345
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby rath » Thu Jan 17, 2013 11:28 am

Image
rath
 
Posts: 4345
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby chiselray » Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:51 pm

no wait rath ,of course you can kill somebody if you don;'t have an automatic weapon,according to capricorn you could just make one ?
if they can't have them they have enough skills to simply contruct one if need be,those being capable of course and they may well supply the demand of many !
That may be true but what is teh greater good in teh end ?
In my opinion people fail to see how change can happen relatively quickly and less painfull than they might expect.Our guns laws didn't have a causation effect where as people simply made automatic weapons in where they have caused a reoccurance of the problem for the reason they were banned.Possibly some people did make them in Australia but we don't see them used in horiffic ways here anymore .We don't see them period.

Case in point ....2000 and something a university student in Australia decided to kill a handful of fellow students ,he was armed with pistols ,he managed to kill only 2 people, and of course if you add up the odds of killing a lot more if he had an automatic weapon the kill rate would have been a lot higher and more in line with his intentions ..
User avatar
chiselray
 
Posts: 1539
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: earth

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion Topics

cron
  • View new posts
  • View unanswered posts
  • Who is online
  • In total there are 5 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 4 guests (based on users active over the past 10 minutes)
  • Most users ever online was 292 on Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:19 pm
  • Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests