Well i'm sorry all


PDA






vindi C
January 27, 2005, 06:43 AM
I started off on this forum thinking that i'd just post once then leave. I read some of your responses and was actually amazed at how logical and intelligently structured alot of them were. You had talked me into staying and were beggining to convince me of a few points when i opened up a new thread about which guns you people own and where you go shooting, i got this. "As would anyone who's been made to appear to be a buffoon as many times in a 24 hour period as you." "It's a troll!" "Look at me,Look at me! :barf: " "Not again ". Hmmm there i was thinking you might be a bunch of intelligent people with some interesting arguments but i guess i was wrong, maybe you are just a pack of gun stroking rednecks with an IQ lower than the current room temperature. It's a real pitty, some of your arguments were making me think twice, making me consider that it didn't matter if you killed someone over the $20 in your wallet and maybe a black eye, well i guess you just messed up.

I'm know for sure there are those of you out there who are intelligent and this may just be a group of 3 post fools who have no intelligence and so dismiss my ideas straight away without any concideration.

prove me wrong! go back to intelligent debates over guns and self defence, talk to me about where you're all from and what you do for a living, lets get to know each other!

I'll end on one note. There is no need for self defence and the defence of others around you if there is no crime. This is EXACTLY what taking guns away from Australlians has done! decreased crime tenfold, look at the statistics. All our gun laws do is take guns away from people who dont need them. Those who actually use them on farms or those who like having fun with them on gun ranges are aloud to and are most welcome to! It's a real pitty that harsh gun laws didn't work out in many European companys, i guess it's just the luck of the draw.

Talk intelligently and i'll listen, insult me and swear and I'll just switch off. I hope this isn't goodbye but its going to have to be depending on the replys I get. It all comes down to two things, do you want me to think that gun owners are intelligent and reasonable or do you want me to think you're all a pack of fools who know nothing about the rights of others.

If you enjoyed reading about "Well i'm sorry all" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
280PLUS
January 27, 2005, 06:58 AM
Vin,

Unfortunately nomatter where you go you'll find a few that will act as you describe. Even here on THR. I think we call them the 1% or 3%, I can't remember the exact number. Your best bet is to ignore those and just pay attention to the other 99% who have taken the time to try to make you understand their positions in logical and reasonable terms Don't let a few bad apples spoil the whole bunch, as it were. Those calling you a troll, for example, are no more than "Pots trying to call the kettle black."

280

Spiphel Rike
January 27, 2005, 07:02 AM
Vindi C, may you please show the stats to this board?
If you will cite information could you please show it to us, a link, copied information perhaps.

I am a responsible person, I like to talk things down, and de-escalate. Most responsible gun owners would do this prior to shooting someone unless there was a violent crime being perpetrated. I know I won't do anything stupid if I had a gun, and I believe that I should be able to own whatever gun I like provided I pass a background check, and some tests on the laws relating to the usage of this weapon. Gun control does not decrease crime, it has been shown time and again, in england there is a lot of violent crime but not a lot of gun crime. Australia has the fourth highest incidence of rape in the world (quoted from today tonight on australia day) which is a very serious problem.

People are attacked in the streets late at night while walking home with a girlfriend after a night out. In a free country I should be able to walk the streets as late at night as I want and be perfectly safe, Australia is not a free country. This risk makes me feel that some form of defensive weapon is necessary, and it is well known that martial arts would not help a less than strongly built person like me, and that less lethal weapons are not totally effective. If I owned a gun I would definitely carry less lethal items as well, but I would not believe in them as blindly as you do. Pacifists like you are the reason that people should be armed, you won't do a lot to protect yourself so other people will have to do it for you. Get a few more years under your belt before you make sweeping statements.

"A person without a sword can still die on the blade of one."

vindi C
January 27, 2005, 07:16 AM
ok, If u guys would like to see some figures on decreasing crime rates against the time since the gun ban in aussie i'll go dig some up, I suppose you 'll all take me abit more seriously then. i'm gonna hit the hay and i'm going away for the weekend so i'll get onto it when i get back.

I'll leave you with some background behind the gun ban in Australia. The primeminister had been thinking it over for sometime when one day something tipped the scales. Two men walked into a coffee shop in Tasmania with two sports bags FULL of guns, long story short there where 14 killed, excluding the shooters. Among the dead was a 4 year old girl, my sister who would be older than me now.

Maybe you'll all understand why i'm so passionately against the use of guns out of a firing range now?? Please dont give me sympathy, i've had three life times full.

peacefuljeffrey
January 27, 2005, 07:20 AM
Hmmm there i was thinking you might be a bunch of intelligent people with some interesting arguments but i guess i was wrong, maybe you are just a pack of gun stroking rednecks with an IQ lower than the current room temperature. It's a real pitty, some of your arguments were making me think twice, making me consider that it didn't matter if you killed someone over the $20 in your wallet and maybe a black eye, well i guess you just messed up.

We have seen your kind come and go.

You come in here, disingenuously claiming that your mind is open; you bait us with a bunch of obviously ridiculous arguments, statements, and beliefs; you KNOW we are going to point out how ridiculous they are, with logic and fact; you set yourself up to be able to claim that we were sooo unfair and mean and disrespectful; and then you get to leave with a pout, saying, "See, I guess I was wrong when I thought you were gentlemanly and fair and mature and virtous..." :barf: We knew what was coming, vindi. You are not clever enough to be original.

I'm know for sure there are those of you out there who are intelligent and this may just be a group of 3 post fools who have no intelligence and so dismiss my ideas straight away without any concideration.

Let me tell you something: Your ideas BEG to be dismissed straight away. Everything from "no man has the right to take another man's life" to "use anything else for self defense, but guns are a no-no" to "it's easy to disarm a criminal using lots of other means besides guns." These are preposterous on their face.

I'll end on one note. There is no need for self defence and the defence of others around you if there is no crime.

PLEASE TELL US WHEN THERE WILL BE NO MORE CRIME, ANYWHERE AND AT ANY TIME, AND I'M PRETTY SURE WE'LL GLADLY STOP CARRYING GUNS AND OTHER DEFENSIVE WEAPONS, BECAUSE WHAT YOU'LL BE DESCRIBING WILL BE, WELL, HEAVEN. Imagine that -- a paradise where there is not a single crime committed anywhere at any time!

Until that comes -- and it won't be coming any time soo... I mean, ever -- it would be ridiculous to render ourselves defenseless as we sit and wait for it.

This is EXACTLY what taking guns away from Australlians has done! decreased crime tenfold, look at the statistics.

LOL!! Taking guns away from Australians has completely eliminated CRIME in Australia, says vindi.

Nope, wait, then vindi says that crime has "decreased tenfold." That's not exactly "no crime."

Vindi says that it's not hard to get guns in Australia despite the ban -- all you have to do is show big mommy government that you "need" guns and presto, no impediment!

But nope, wait, then vindi says that guns were taken away from Australlians! (sic)

Vindi can't keep his own story straight, but gets indignant when we shoot holes in it!

It all comes down to two things, do you want me to think that gun owners are intelligent and reasonable or do you want me to think you're all a pack of fools who know nothing about the rights of others.

When has anyone tried to shut down your right to say what you have to say? It sounds more to me like YOU are the one trying to deny anyone else the right to point out how idiotic your arguments and claims are! You get all touchy as soon as you are made to look foolish when you justifiably should be made to look foolish. Who here -- quote the post -- has said that they think you should not be able to say what you wish to say?

For the record, vindi, I don't give a rat's hindquarters what you think of me or gun owners in general. It is my firm belief that you came here to flaunt your anti-gun/anti-self-defense views and certainly NOT to keep an open mind and let us inform you about guns and self defense rights. You behaved as the same sort of troll we've seen time and again all over the internet, spouting inflammatory rhetoric that has been debunked a million times, and then getting falsely indignant when the intellectual bankruptcy of your views was exposed for all to see, and sometimes with prejudice.

No one cares if someone with such crippled rational thought processes as yourself holds a low opinion of us.

-Jeffrey

peacefuljeffrey
January 27, 2005, 07:31 AM
I'll leave you with some background behind the gun ban in Australia. The primeminister had been thinking it over for sometime when one day something tipped the scales. Two men walked into a coffee shop in Tasmania with two sports bags FULL of guns, long story short there where 14 killed, excluding the shooters. Among the dead was a 4 year old girl, my sister who would be older than me now.

Maybe you'll all understand why i'm so passionately against the use of guns out of a firing range now?? Please dont give me sympathy, i've had three life times full.

First off, I don't really believe you.

Second, there is a logical disconnect between being upset about the murderers using guns, and advocating for no good citizens to be allowed to have them. What about the argument that if someone nearby had been armed -- maybe even a FEW people -- that they could have stopped the murderers before the full massacre of 14 people was carried out?

Hey, what if a guy went to a firing range and decided to open fire on a bunch of innocent shooters who were lined up and focused on their targets?! I guess then you would be opposed to using guns even on a firing range, right? Because as we already know, you would oppose any of those shooters using their guns to kill (and stop) the guy from using his gun to kill all of them. Right? You've voiced your opposition to the use of guns for defense. According to you, surely there would be some non-lethal way they could stop him and save all of their lives. I don't understand how you make a connection between the wrongness of murder and the supposed wrongness of using a gun in a righteous way to stop murder by killing a murderour perpetrator, and thus ending the cycle of violence with his death.


Do you see how ridiculous you sound? NONE of the stuff you've said here is well-thought-out and logical.

-Jeffrey

denfoote
January 27, 2005, 07:34 AM
The same thing happened in Klieen (sp) Texas a few years back at a Denny's restaurant. A patron had to watch her parents killed by a madman because she complied with the state law which forced her to leave her legally owned pistol locked in her car. (She is now a Texas state legislator) Instead of banning guns (which the Demonratic Governor Ann "Ma Barker" Richards would have wanted to do) the people of Texas fought for and won the God given right to carry a concealed handgun. Our current President ran against the Demonrat incumbent on the promise of signing the CCW bill as soon as it reached his desk . (It was vetoed twice by Ma Barker and she vowed that no such law would pass as long as she was Governor. The People of Texas took care of that!!)

Guess what?? Crime rates in Texas dropped like a rock, soon after the law went into effect!!

Same crime. Different, freedom loving, mindset. Opposite results!!

Gun control is not crime control. It's people control!! Tyranny, just the same!!

Professor John Lott has the relavent stats in his book "More guns. Less crime." if you are interested .

CannibalCrowley
January 27, 2005, 07:38 AM
I'll end on one note. There is no need for self defence and the defence of others around you if there is no crime. This is EXACTLY what taking guns away from Australlians has done! decreased crime tenfold, look at the statisticsPlease show said statistics.

We recently touched upon the firearms issue on another forum. This is what one Aussie had to say:
"Likewise. You have no idea what you would have to do to get such weapons (sidearms) legally registered here in Australia. Also they could never be used or even carried beyond the boundaries of a sporting shooters' club. Unfortunately the crims don't particularly care whether they have legal firearms or not.

Melbourne is in the middle of a gang war with rivals being popped off every other month - sometimes weeks. As usual it's mainly drug related. Sorry off topic!"

SAG0282
January 27, 2005, 07:46 AM
I don't know why I'm wasting my time with you, but since I'm at work and have nothing better to do......*shrugs*

I'll end on one note. There is no need for self defence and the defence of others around you if there is no crime. This is EXACTLY what taking guns away from Australlians has done! decreased crime tenfold, look at the statistics.

OK, let's look at the statistics. That you would a) assert that crime has decreased tenfold in Australia, and that b) even if Australia had experienced a crime rate decrease, banning or restricting guns was the reason for this does NOT speak well at all for your intelligence.

Following shocking killings in 1996, the Australian government
made sweeping changes to the firearm legislation
in 1997. Unfortunately, the recent firearm regulations
have not made the streets of Australia any safer.
The total homicide rate, after having remained basically
flat from 1995 to 2001, has now begun climbing again.
The decline in homicide rate in the gun-permissive United
States stands out against the trend in Australia.
The divergence between Australia and the United
States is even more apparent with violent crime. While violent
crime is decreasing in the United States, it is increasing
in Australia. Over the past six years, the overall
rate of violent crime in Australia has continued to
increase. Robbery and armed robbery rates continue to
rise. Armed robbery has increased 166% nationwide.
The confiscation and destruction of legally owned firearms
cost Australian taxpayers at least $500 million.
The costs of the police services bureaucracy, including
the hugely costly infrastructure of the gun registration
system, has increased by $200 million since 1997. And
for what? There has been no visible impact on violent
crime. It is impossible to justify such a massive amount of
the taxpayers’ money for no decrease in crime. For that
kind of tax money, the police could have had more patrol
cars, shorter shifts, or maybe even better equipment.
Think of how many lives might have been saved.

http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/failed/FailedExperiment.pdf

The above by the way isn't an NRA stat or study, but rather a CANADIAN study. I sure don't see any tenfold decreases. The US rates HAVE been decreasing, yet our gun laws have gotten more liberal and more and more guns are sold every year.

Go away troll. If you're not prepared enough to know something simple and fundamental like crime trends in your own country, you shouldn't be here.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v330/SGeringer/stats.jpg

SAG0282
January 27, 2005, 07:51 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v330/SGeringer/stats2.jpg

jobu07
January 27, 2005, 07:55 AM
Those speak for themselves :)

peacefuljeffrey
January 27, 2005, 07:59 AM
Go away troll. If you're not prepared enough to know something simple and fundamental like crime trends in your own country, you shouldn't be here.

The most telling thing is that he claimed the "tenfold decrease in crime" but when pressed for proof, he now says he has to go FIND it.

Wait a minute. If he knew of the alleged decrease, he'd have to have already seen/possessed the stats that bear it out.

So something tells me he was spouting this alleged crime drop out his a$$ and now claims he's gonna find proof of it.

Don't be surprised if we don't see him back after his weekend away.

-Jeffrey

SAG0282
January 27, 2005, 08:00 AM
It all comes down to two things, do you want me to think that gun owners are intelligent and reasonable or do you want me to think you're all a pack of fools who know nothing about the rights of others.



(Non-High Road comment removed by Art)

I'll leave you with some background behind the gun ban in Australia. The primeminister had been thinking it over for sometime when one day something tipped the scales. Two men walked into a coffee shop in Tasmania with two sports bags FULL of guns, long story short there where 14 killed, excluding the shooters. Among the dead was a 4 year old girl, my sister who would be older than me now.

Maybe you'll all understand why i'm so passionately against the use of guns out of a firing range now?? Please dont give me sympathy, i've had three life times full.



The gun ban was what, '96. A 4 year old in '96 would be 13. You identified yourself as 15. Above you say your sister would be older.

peacefuljeffrey
January 27, 2005, 08:20 AM
True, if she was 4 in 1996, she'd be 13 now.
But he's 15, and he says she'd be older than he is.

I'm glad I didn't demur from saying I didn't believe him, but I am sorry I didn't use the term "filthy lying scumbag troll" when I had the chance.

He came in here knowing that the idiotic drivel he was going to spout would annoy us and cause us to refute him in no uncertain terms.

Then he passive-aggressively made a pseudo-exit from the thread/forum saying Gee, I thought I could have a rational discussion with ya'll but you're too impolite and don't respect my opinion... Like we didn't see that coming... :rolleyes:

Anyone who would LIE and claim that he had a sister who was murdered... :barf:
-Jeffrey

ReadyontheRight
January 27, 2005, 08:38 AM
do you want me to think that gun owners are intelligent and reasonable or do you want me to think you're all a pack of fools who know nothing about the rights of others.

Most of us couldn't care less what you think of "gun owners". We're just trying to get you to THINK.

280PLUS
January 27, 2005, 08:48 AM
4.) Spamming, trolling, flaming, and personal attacks are prohibited. You can disagree with other members, even vehemently, but it must be done in a well-mannered form. Attack the argument, not the arguer.

Enough Said

No, One question. Define, precisely, "Troll" for my benefit as I don't seem to catch the meaning.

Then try to get with rule #4

:mad:

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
January 27, 2005, 09:23 AM
I'll leave you with some background behind the gun ban in Australia. The primeminister had been thinking it over for sometime when one day something tipped the scales. Two men walked into a coffee shop in Tasmania with two sports bags FULL of guns, long story short there where 14 killed, excluding the shooters. Among the dead was a 4 year old girl, my sister who would be older than me now.

Maybe you'll all understand why i'm so passionately against the use of guns out of a firing range now?? Please dont give me sympathy, i've had three life times full.

If you're going to lie like this you might have at least taken the time to get the details of the Port Arthur shootings correct (hint: It was one shooter).

The way in which you have dishonored the memory of the victims of that massacre, by using it as a cheap front to get the attention you crave, is contemptable.

Spot77
January 27, 2005, 09:34 AM
Accordingly, there was no bag "full of guns". There was ONE rifle. I cannot find any article which describes otherwise.

The man was a lunatic, with a history of mental disorder. Shouldn't law enforcement in Australia have dealt with this problem previously?

According to a survivor, and in total contrast to the sensationalist media, the gunman fired aimed, specific individual shots. There was no "spraying of bullets".

Gun bans revolving around semiautomatic weapons were, and still are a liberal's knee jerk reaction to and fatal shooting.

Google searches provided some information. Here is a few links:

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9604/28/australia.shooting/

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9604/28/australia.shooting/


Unless ther ewas another less famous shooting in Tasmania that you're referring to.

sumpnz
January 27, 2005, 09:45 AM
He also lists is B'day as April 1. While possibly true it doesn't bode well.

I'll hold my tounge on his posts until I see supporting data. From a credible source.

The_Antibubba
January 27, 2005, 09:52 AM
A man who is convinced of his safety because the Government tells him he is safe cannot possibly understand Freedom.

Freedom begins in the mind, vindi. Maybe someday you'll understand freedom. Read Orwell's 1984-he understood.

Meanwhile, this is The High Road. We gave you the benefit of the doubt, but you've become a troll. Lurk if you want-heck, maybe you'll learn something!-but please don't spout your blinded serf beliefs anymore.

CannibalCrowley
January 27, 2005, 09:53 AM
No, One question. Define, precisely, "Troll" for my benefit as I don't seem to catch the meaning.An internet troll is a person who sends duplicitous messages to get angry responses, or a message sent by such a person. The term derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" and ultimately from trolling for fish. It's use to refer to unwanted internet posts originates on usenet. (taken from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll) )

Mmm, Google.

Third_Rail
January 27, 2005, 09:56 AM
Vindi C,

You'll not get any response other than what you've received, nor will you get any facts other than what you read: facts are just that, the truth.

You ask us to be open-minded and hear you out, but when we ask the same of you, we're "gun stroking rednecks". I live in MA, and I own very few firearms. Am I really a "gun stroking redneck"? Could you define that for me?

You say that you have statistics to prove a "tenfold decrease in crime". Wonderful! May I see them?

There are many statistics from your own Australian Government that directly contradict what you have been telling us about crime.

I truly hope that you didn't lie to us about your sister being killed, for liars get little slack in the real world.



Never be so open-minded that your mind falls out, nor so close-minded that your mind suffocates.

280PLUS
January 27, 2005, 10:00 AM
Ah, another one of life's great mysteries solved at THR.

Everybody try to fight nicely now...

:evil:

Partisan Ranger
January 27, 2005, 10:02 AM
"go back to intelligent debates over guns and self defence,"

Those are funny words to hear from a fellow who engaged in silly ad hominem attacks on our president without provocation. You surely are 15, and a rather immature and arrogant one at that.

Respectfully,
PR

sig&wesson
January 27, 2005, 10:06 AM
i refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed ..opponent you give false information no sources to back up any information you give then you say you want intelligent conversation but yet you offer no intelligent conversation only a little boy who likes to pout and not answer any time hes asked for statistics or facts you dont want intelligent conversation you want to make mindless points that arent true nor factual your 15 you have a lot to learn im in my 30's i learn every day i dont profess to know it all i do howver know if i or my family or another is attacked or in danger of losing there life i will make a stand even if it costs my life to say as you did in your original posting to use a tazer or mace or to just let a violent attacker rape your loved ones if all they want is sex is pure and sheer stupidity as Aids kills also among other std's ingorance can be fixed unfortunatly stupidity is forver

FMarlon
January 27, 2005, 10:07 AM
No, One question. Define, precisely, "Troll" for my benefit as I don't seem to catch the meaning.

Here you go, 280 Plus.

Taken from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll)

An internet troll is a person who sends duplicitous messages to get angry responses, or a message sent by such a person. The term derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" and ultimately from trolling for fish. It's use to refer to unwanted internet posts originates on usenet. The term is frequently abused to slander opponents in heated debates and is frequently misapplied to those who are ignorant of etiquette.

Trolling is often described as an online version of the breaching experiment, where social boundaries and rules of etiquette are broken. Self-proclaimed trolls often style themselves as Devil's Advocates or gadflies or culture jammers, challenging the dominant discourse and assumptions of the forum they are trolling in an attempt to subvert and introduce different ways of thinking. Detractors who value etiquette claim that true Devil's Advocates generally identify themselves as such for the sake of etiquette, whereas trolls often consider etiquette to be something worth trolling in order to fight groupthink.

Trolls are sometimes caricatured as socially inept. This is often due to the fundamental attribution error, as it is impossible to know the real traits of an individual solely from their online discourse. Indeed, since intentional trolls are alleged to knowingly flout social boundaries, it is difficult to typecast them as socially inept since they have arguably proven adept at their goal.

PMATULEW
January 27, 2005, 10:17 AM
I never had any misconceptions of his age from the get go.

Only in a 15 year old's world are life situations so black and white. He regurgitates what he has been taught and then comes here looking for validation. Didn't work out so well.

Age and experience may change his opinions. Or not.

The rest of us in the "free" world would do well to teach our children reality rather than fantasy.

aguyindallas
January 27, 2005, 10:22 AM
Ok, you can visit the board as often as you like since its on the www and that does not make it specific to just one country, race, etc...which is wonderful I believe.

I have not read all of your posts and really don't care to. I won't call you a troll either.

Your intro says you live in Australia, the best country in the world. If thats the case, why do you even give a crap about our gun laws? We are not over there trying to change the people of your country, or their thinking. In America, we allow everyone to have their own opinion and make their own decisions. As such, there is no need for you to post comments and try to get us to convince you to approve of our laws and rights. If you want to learn about people, sit back, relax and and enjoy the flight. If you want honest comments, ask questions, but when you get a response you dont like or one you disagree with, move on.

In other words, if you dont like our opinions, dont come here. We are not on this forum to entertain your brain. We are common people with a thirst for American Freedom that we are entitled to have by the U.S. Constitution. There is nothing wrong with what we do. Maybe there are a few bad apples in the bunch, but hey, that goes with everything in life.

Furthermore, your comment of calling us gun stroking rednecks is uncalled for. If you read the terms of use of this forum, you would see that we do not allow personal attacks here. We take The High Road. If you can't handle that, please don't come back.

Byron Quick
January 27, 2005, 10:34 AM
vindi C.

A bit more research might be in order before you post here.

You want to get to know us better? Make sure that our IQ's are greater than room temperature?

Fine. I'am an emergency registered nurse. I have two baccalaureate degrees.
I own over fifty firearms....I haven't done a count lately. Contrary to the people who want to believe that all gun owners are trailer trash...my firearms collection along with extensive accessories and reloading equipment have more value than many people's houses-much less their mobile homes.

I'm also a member of a group who has defended myself from death or extensive brain damage with the use of a concealed handgun. Further, one of my grandfathers died from the complications of a gunshot wound. My uncle was murdered with a handgun. My oldest friend took a knife to a gunfight...didn't work too well. Two friends of mine who were machine gun dealers were shot to death in their store in 1994. A cousin was tied to a concrete block with his bootlaces and thrown in a pond after being repeatedly sodomized by a couple of hitchhikers (want to argue if he wished he had a firearm?). So, friend, I've seen both sides of the equation-up close and personal. Therefore I am cognizant of your loss. But please don't think it gives you some type of specialness. It doesn't...not by a long chalk.

People who claim that I should be disarmed are people who believe I should have been beaten to death by my assailant armed with a hickory sledge hammer handle. If you wish to make that claim...defend it.

Art Eatman
January 27, 2005, 10:37 AM
Troll or Not-Troll, name-calling of whatever sort is not High Road. There's no excuse for rudeness and discourtesy, regardless of somebody else's behavior. There are many other ways to express scorn and derision of somebody's IDEAS.

:), Art

"Just because ya gotta kill a guy is no reason to be rude to him."

mfree
January 27, 2005, 10:37 AM
Vindi,

I would glady engage in intelligent discourse with you, were it not for the nagging sensation that I would be trying to change the opinions of a brick wall.

As for intelligent, I'm a computer systems analyst with a degree in computer science, who's been with firearms all his life, and am currently taking a job in a gun shop/ firing range *just for fun*.

armoredman
January 27, 2005, 11:20 AM
or do you want me to think you're all a pack of fools who know nothing about the rights of others.
Your rights in Austrailia are yours, ours in America are ours, fought hard for and won with the blood and sacrifice of millions. If you cannot stand our rights, you do not need to visit. Whatever you wish to think is whatever you wish to think. I believe you are a foolishly opinionated young person, who will have a horrible shock of running into a brick wall called "real life", soon.
In the meantime, if we bother you so much, go on walkabout.

CentralTexas
January 27, 2005, 11:42 AM
One man you mean- officially Martin Bryant acted alone in Port Arthur.

As always are alternative explanations-
http://www.iansa.org/campaigns_events/port_arthur_memorial.htm
http://www.davidicke.net/tellthetruth/conspiracy/parthur1.html
http://vialls.homestead.com/portarthur.html
http://www.reclaimaustralia.net/TIMBIP/deceit_and_terrorism.htm
CT

Fred Fuller
January 27, 2005, 11:43 AM
VC,

I've read all three threads I've seen you participate in, and unfortunately the best thing I can think of to say at this point is that you are welcome to your opinion re. the utility of firearms in personal defense. I hope you will be so generous as to allow me my opinion as well, which happens to be the complete opposite of yours.

And I hope the occasion never arises in either of our lives which proves you wrong- or me right.

Good day sir,

lpl/nc

ReadyontheRight
January 27, 2005, 11:44 AM
Among the dead was a 4 year old girl, my sister who would be older than me now.

If your claim above is true, I can understand that you dislike murderers (as do we all). I can also understand your search for a less-lethal method of protection that is as effective as firearms.

Perhaps studying physics, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering and ballistics, combined with your prowess as a competitive shooter (as referenced in your PM to me) and your personal passion for this subject will help you develop such a defensive weapon and become a rich, famous man. You will have solved a problem that has plagued law-enforcement experts and defense contactors for centuries. I'll keep an eye out for Vendi Industries - maybe you can allow some of us to invest in your IPO. We've certainly supplied you with a priceless supply of self-defense market research.

In the meantime, guns have saved many more lives than they have taken. Your anecdotal evidence of the evils of guns can be balanced out by many more stories of guns STOPPING bad guys like the murdering idiot in Port Arthur. Many of these stories come from members of this board if you care to actually listen.

The ability of a few murdering idiots to infrequently use a gun to kill children is the price we pay to effectively defend ourselves. Taking guns away from law-abiding citizens will not ever stop murder. As pointed out by others (and supported by actual FACTS), taking guns away from citizens leads to more violence. More importantly, the individual right to keep and bear arms prevents tyranny, which has proven can lead to rounding up and killing children AS A MATTER OF GOVERNMENT POLICY. I have the facts to support this readily available.

If your claim above is NOT true, I fear what you will become as you grow up unless you quickly realize how disrespectful and truly vile it is to make such a claim. We were all young and ignorant once, youth is no excuse for maliciousness.

This is "The High Road" because most of us will apologize when we're wrong, but more importantly, we strive to never say things for which we need to apologize later. You apologize in only your second post - right in the title.

Personally, if I were arguing from the depths of personal tragedy, I would not apologize for a thing I said. Ever.

2nd Amendment
January 27, 2005, 11:51 AM
Hmm, sooooo...

False claims about crime reduction which he can't support and which are then demonstrated false...plus...false claims about the creation of the laws he loves so much and then lied about...

And now he's vanished into the ether...

What was that definition again?

migoi
January 27, 2005, 11:52 AM
for a moment that your claim to have had a sister killed in that tragedy, I have a couple of questions.

Would you rather the incident turned out the way it did or do you think it would have been better if a citizen with a firearm had stopped Martin Bryant's rampage before the first innocent had been killed?

If you could be transported back to 10 seconds before the rampage started (with full knowledge of what is about to happen), standing behind Bryant with a pistol in your hand what would you have done? Ended his idiocy or stuck with your principles and laid down the firearm?

Your opinion of me is of little matter as are your answers but until you can provide honest answers to yourself for those questions your defense of your position wil continue to be riddled with contradictions.

migoi

mephisto
January 27, 2005, 12:06 PM
This is a warning to anyone who comes on THR with an agenda. If you don’t have the facts and you are making up a "info" to propagate a discussion, you will be taken to task. There are far to many members that have the facts to back up what they say and to prove you wrong. Good luck. :)

Psssniper
January 27, 2005, 12:32 PM
Check out the kids web page,
Basically he's a video game "warrior" (http://www.didjshop.com/shop1/MP3s/aa695.mp3)
One thing I taught my kids was to be humble,
keep your mouth shut and try to learn as much
as possible from people with more experience in life than you.
Vindicator you might want to try that approach also ;)

PS I have you on my ignore list after that silly little PM.
So bite yer bum mate, no more chuckin a spaz or earbashing
or we'll think your a few kangaroos loose in the top paddock!
Buzz off buggerlugs :D Oh and throw another shrimp on the barbie.

Titus
January 27, 2005, 12:41 PM
PLEASE TELL US WHEN THERE WILL BE NO MORE CRIME, ANYWHERE AND AT ANY TIME, AND I'M PRETTY SURE WE'LL GLADLY STOP CARRYING GUNS AND OTHER DEFENSIVE WEAPONS, BECAUSE WHAT YOU'LL BE DESCRIBING WILL BE, WELL, HEAVEN.

Well, if you could have that, why would it matter if you did carry your guns around? :)

Pilgrim
January 27, 2005, 12:44 PM
I'll end on one note. There is no need for self defence and the defence of others around you if there is no crime. This is EXACTLY what taking guns away from Australlians has done! decreased crime tenfold, look at the statistics. All our gun laws do is take guns away from people who dont need them. Those who actually use them on farms or those who like having fun with them on gun ranges are aloud to and are most welcome to! It's a real pitty that harsh gun laws didn't work out in many European companys, i guess it's just the luck of the draw.

I have carried a pistol continuously for the past twenty years. I can safely say that as a result crime has pretty much left me alone. I have suffered a few property crimes, but no assaults. I've even encountered a cranked up burglar who wisely decided to leave when he saw I had a pistol in my hand. Another time, I was accosted by a fellow in a dark parking lot who was obviously trying to set me up for a strong arm robbery by his friends. He and his friends quickly left the scene when he discovered I had a pistol and was prepared to use it.

I believe that your statement that self defence isn't necessary when there is no crime is a product of your public school education. Listen to me carefully, public school does not reflect real life. This is important, because your teachers haven't experienced life as it is unless they have done a stint in other rough and tumble occupations like the military, construction, ranching, etc.

Guns are fun. I enjoy them immensely. Shooting is probably my principal hobby. However, after twenty years in the military and seventeen plus years as a deputy sheriff, I know exactly what they are for.

I strongly suggest you get off of your crusade to separate reality from what you wish things to be. It will save you much disappointment when you are on your own and ultimately responsible for your safety and happiness, and of those you choose to love.

Pilgrim

deputydon
January 27, 2005, 01:18 PM
Admin,

Will someone please poof this idiot. First of all Australia is not the best country in the world. This is only his 15 year old unresearched and unqualified opinion. Secondly, this clown obviously doesn't have any knowledge or even a clue about what he is braying about. (He shoots trees !) If he wants to let the BG's have their way with him thats OK by me. Thirdly, I just don't want to listen to him spew his uneducated and uninformed drivel. :mad: -Don

OF
January 27, 2005, 01:27 PM
Come on, seriously, don't you guys feel just a little silly arguing with a 15-year old video gamer? Don't you all have better things to do...like trim your toenails or stare at the ceiling or something ;)

- Gabe

White Horseradish
January 27, 2005, 01:30 PM
Vindi, I would be glad to go back to reasoned debate. However, I was not the one that left it.

I have asked you a question in your original thread twice. You have completely ignored it. It is not much of a debate if you refuse to participate.

one-shot-one
January 27, 2005, 01:32 PM
you are right, i am now currently seeking a safe way to remove my guns from the planet. :scrutiny:
how was that, Art?

Gun-Ther
January 27, 2005, 01:34 PM
As a noob here, I gotta say I think I got a crash course in THR philosophy and info about the backgrounds/experience that many members are speaking from. Altho I question vindi's motives-- bringing up an anti-gun topic here seems like somebody bringing up "Stirring With A Stick: Pros & Cons" topic in a hornets' nest, it made for some excellent reading.

JesseCuster40
January 27, 2005, 01:41 PM
Here are the statistics for the crime rate in Texas.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.htm

Governer George W. Bush signed the Concealed Handgun License bill in 1995.

At this point, the murder rate begins to fall dramatically, from 2022 per 100,000 inhabitants to 1238 per 100,000 in the year 2000.

The forcible rape rate also falls, from 9102 per 100,000 in 1994 to 7856 in 2000.

Of course, this does not mean that there is a direct link between citizens beginning to carry concealed handguns and the drop in crime. However, it does show that there was no increase as a result of the CHL law.

Lonestar.45
January 27, 2005, 01:54 PM
I don't believe all Australians go around saying "Crikey, mate!" and wrestling crocs, and you shouldn't believe that all law abiding American gun owners are crazy rednecks.

The violent crime rates in Australia and Britian are inversely proportional to gun ownership it seems. Violent crimes have been going up, while gun ownership has been going down. Why is that?

"There is no need for self defence and the defence of others around you if there is no crime."

Wow. So, when was the last time Australia was invaded? Was it ever? Not in modern history, that I can recall. So, since there's no need for self defense, why do you have armed forces? Because it's a dangerous world out there, and you *might* need to defend yourselves? Ahh, of course! The same logic applies to individuals. I, and my family, have never been the victims of a violent crime. Does that mean there's no need to learn to defend myself? Not in my book.

It's been said before, in this world there are sheep, wolves, and wolf dogs. Which do you choose to be?

ReadyontheRight
January 27, 2005, 02:08 PM
Come on, seriously, don't you guys feel just a little silly arguing with a 15-year old video gamer? Don't you all have better things to do...like trim your toenails or stare at the ceiling or something

Actually -- I view the responses to these folks as "sharpening the saw". Best case, we all get some new ideas and arguments from each other to use to further our cause. Worst case, I've done some more thinking about a topic I enjoy.

It simply amazes me how high-level THRers treat these topics. It actually takes some Ad Hominem or off-topic attacks before we actually stoop the the level of calling someone with 5-10 posts - all baiting - a (gasp!) "Troll". I'm sure anything worse gets editied by our fine Moderators, but I really enjoy seeing the underlying good nature and open-arm attitude of THR regulars.

Actually convincing these "fire and forget" visitors to THINK about what they BELIEVE regarding guns would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath.

spacemanspiff
January 27, 2005, 02:19 PM
Hmmm there i was thinking you might be a bunch of intelligent people with some interesting arguments but i guess i was wrong, maybe you are just a pack of gun stroking rednecks with an IQ lower than the current room temperature. It's a real pitty, some of your arguments were making me think twice, making me consider that it didn't matter if you killed someone over the $20 in your wallet and maybe a black eye, well i guess you just messed up.
vindi i think you just dont understand the American culture. The heart of America thrives on self-sufficiency. We (obviously not all Americans, but us of the same mindset as you will find here at THR) take great pride in fulfilling all of our needs and that of our families as much as we are able to do so. This includes insuring the safety of our loved ones. It means that we will do whatever is necessary to protect ourselves and those whom we love.

If you are indeed the family member of one of the victims, I am sorry you had to go through that. But imagine for a moment a scenario.

You are with your family in a public place. A criminal (who bought his guns on the black market, where criminals usually get their guns from) enters and starts shooting people. In front of you are three items. A camera, a cell phone, and a gun.
You have three options. You can take pictures of the criminal and hope that police will find it and discover the identity of the murderer, after he's killed everyone.
You could call 911 and hope that police will make it there in time before the murderer kills everyone.
Or you could be a caring human and stop the loss of life by returning fire at the murderer.

Yes the example is extreme, but your answer to it will reveal just how much of a human being you are. Maybe you will wish you had a taser, but then realize you are too far away for it to be effective, or the murderer is wearing thick clothing that the barbs cannot pierce.


Finally, I have little desire to change your mind. You are not from here. You do not understand the mind of the criminal. I have a greater interest in changing the mind of my fellow countryman that shares your opinions.



Lonestar, i just used that same argument on a group of canadians last week, to no avail.

Hawkmoon
January 27, 2005, 02:21 PM
prove me wrong! go back to intelligent debates over guns and self defence,
As this is an Internet forum open to anyone, I regret that I'm not about to tell you or anyone else who I am, where I live, or what I do for a living. I am, however, willing to discuss self-defense. You have a perfect right, of course, to decline to defend yourself. However, you do not have a right to deny me the means to defend myself.

The situation regarding your sister was indeed unfortunate. However, not all the gun control laws in the world could have prevented it. Do you honestly believe that, at this very moment, there are no Bad Men in Australia who possess firearms? If you believe such, you are exceedingly naive.

There have been similar mass shootings in the U.S. A woman in a McDonald's restaurant watched a gunman shoot and kill her mother. This woman had a license to carry a handgun, but she had left the gun either in the car or at home (I do not recall which, but the result was the same). Had she chosen to carry her handgun into the McDoanalds that day, she might have saved her mother and several other people.

Who might you consider authoritative on this subject? I do not know your religion, and this is not intended to turn this discussion into one on religion, but it might interest you to know that the world's two most prominent pacifists BOTH support the right to kill an aggressor in self defense. None other than the current Pope has, in fact, written that is not only a right but a duty to protect innocent life -- even if it requires the taking of the aggressor's life to do it.

The Dalai Lama said something to the effect that if you are accosted by a bandit on the road, you should use your gun to kill him. (He might have said "shoot" rather than "kill." I am at a borrowed computer at the moment and do not have access to my bookmarks).

OF
January 27, 2005, 02:25 PM
Best case, we all get some new ideas and arguments from each other to use to further our cause. Worst case, I've done some more thinking about a topic I enjoy.Good point. I just see people getting really worked up due to the insults from this kid and hope we can keep it all in perspective...

- Gabe

OF
January 27, 2005, 02:29 PM
This woman had a license to carry a handgun, but she had left the gun either in the car or at home (I do not recall which, but the result was the same). Had she chosen to carry her handgun into the McDoanalds that day, she might have saved her mother and several other people.Suzanna Hupp left her weapon in the trunk of her car as it was illegal to carry into a restaurant in Texas (Luby's, not McDonalds - if we're talking about the same incident). So by obeying a completely pointless law she lost her family to a madman and untold others lost their lives. She then became a tireless gun-rights advocate and won a seat in the House.

It's good to remember her story when people float these 'gun-free zone' disasters in waiting. Your local anti-gun rep floats a bill to ban guns in, say, churches or around schools or wherever he/she thinks they can get them banned and the result is death. Death and tragedy.

- Gabe

Sleeping Dog
January 27, 2005, 02:29 PM
And now he's vanished into the ether...

Vanished? It's maybe a little unrealistic to expect him to keep U.S. hours. It's the middle of the night over there. Maybe he'll be back with crime statistics etc after breakfast.

Regards.

odysseus
January 27, 2005, 02:36 PM
Vindi,

Much here and elsewhere has been said on this subject. I can only echo a lot of the reasoning. However there are a few items that are indisputable in my opinion that I can at least express to make sure is always there. These are obvious and of course redundant to the conversation here, but nonetheless any discussion outside of it is just noise to me.

1) We have a constitution in the United States that protects our citizen's rights. In it is the Second Amendment. There is no debate that this protects citizens rights to own firearms, and that this right is not to be infringed. Current legal thought even in the Department of Justice is echoing this point. We are not Australia, nor the UK. Bottomline, it is a right which corresponds with another document holy to us US citizens, The Bill of Rights. Owning guns crosses many reasons, from sport, to hunting, to hobbiest, to self defense. All are protected.

2) Law enforcement is only reactionary. It can only react usually after the fact in a free world. The great intellectual conflict some people such as yourself illustrate is that some cannot accept that in order to live freely there is always the risk that someone who is also free may act terribly. This is why we have laws. Sure - under Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and other police-states, crime was down (although crimes against humanity were up). I am sure though you would agree these were terrible regimes to live under. No one there either could own firearms and were always dependent on the state. However the state fails miserably at protecting citizens from "crime". Freedom also comes with responsibility, and what is never up for discussion is to infringe on freedom and liberty.

3) Data on the removal of guns from society decreasing crime is unproven. I know of no such data set which is not disputed with data that sets the point that gun ownership and responsible carry decreases crime - or at least prevents the harm the attempted crime could have done. In this highly charged environment from gun control advocates, much of the data is very slanted. One must agree to one fact. Gun control laws by the state only effect those who care about laws, or in other words honest legal citizens. When these terrible laws are enacted, they actually make many honest citizens criminals, many times unknowingly. People who are out to perpatrate crimes don't care about gun laws - and guns will always be available to them for a price. In fact it only creates a black market for them. Have we not seen this with alcohol prohibition? How long have we been fighting a loosing "war on drugs", while cartels are now so large their billions now rival small countries? Fact is banning guns does little and creates a much larger mess down the road. Inhibiting freedoms such as this always do.

We can argue on the "data" and some paid consultants new "data", but the facts remain.

280PLUS
January 27, 2005, 02:42 PM
A while back he stated he was going to bed and then away for the weekend. He said he'd be back a couple of days from now IIRC.

At this point I see him as a 15 yo kid who opened a great big can of worms here withou realizing it and may just be doing a bad job of trying to get them all back in.

e.g., "Misinterpretation of his lack of etiquette"

Just MHO, of course

Thanx to FMarlon for posting that definition in it's entirety for me.

280

Hawkmoon
January 27, 2005, 02:55 PM
Haven't found the Dalai Lama's exact words yet, but I did find this:

Pope John Paul II, para. 2263: "The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. 'The act of self defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor... The one is intended, the other is not.' [Thos. Aquinas]."

John A. Hardon, S.J., pp. 284,327: "Although it is generally wrong to kill another person, we may defend ourselves against aggressors and are not forbidden to kill in legitimate self defense."

In his Encyclical Letter from 1995, EVANGELIUM VITAE, Pope John Paul II writes:

"......Christian reflection has sought a fuller and deeper understanding of what God's commandment prohibits and prescribes. There are in fact situations in which values proposed by God's Law seem to involve a genuine paradox. This happens for example in the case of legitimate defense, in which the right to protect one's own life and the duty not to harm someone else's life are difficult to reconcile in practice. Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defense."

He goes on to say:

"...legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life, the common good of the family or of the State. Unfortunately, it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose actions brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason."
I bold-faced the last sentence to emphasize the point.

HankB
January 27, 2005, 03:13 PM
vindi c:
Two men walked into a coffee shop in Tasmania with two sports bags FULL of guns, long story short there where 14 killed, excluding the shooters. Among the dead was a 4 year old girl, my sister who would be older than me now. Others have already pointed out the age discrepancy in that a 4-year old in 1996 would not be older than a person who's 15 years old today, as well as the event involving a single killer, not two.

But there's more - the link to some pertinent information is here:

http://www.geniac.net/portarthur/those.htm

The list of victims of the Port Arthur massacre shows two young children, Allanah Mikac, age 6, and Madeline Mikac, age 3, among the dead. With the same last name, it's likely they were sisters. But neither one was four (4) years old at the time, and the other victims all appear to be considerably older. And vindi claimed his sister - note his use of the singular - was a victim.

Of the victims with no age listed, there were a few males and a Ng Moh Yee William of Kuala Lumpur (Sorry, no idea as to gender) and a Helene Salzman of Ocean Shore, NSW. So this means vindi's 4 year old sister must have been one of these or was one of the two victims whose names were unreleased at the time. (And it appears one of these was 16, not 4.)

And the total murdered was considerably more than the 14 that "vindi c" mentioned, unless he was only referring to the dead in a single location. (The killer moved around a bit.)

Vindi C, as a person who's lost relatives to crime myself, I understand that the topic may be painful to you, but since in your words we're "just a pack of gun stroking rednecks with an IQ lower than the current room temperature" you'll no doubt appreciate that it's difficult for us account for discrepancies like those above.

Perhaps you'll help us out, and enlighten us as to why there are discrepancies between your post and the recorded facts of the event?

Waitone
January 27, 2005, 03:18 PM
I've had relatives killed (charges pending) and I can assure you I know everything surrounding the event. No mistakes in dates, times. locations and essential facts. One's memory does not grow dim.

spacemanspiff
January 27, 2005, 03:46 PM
another thing to remember vindi is that our country has a Bill of RIGHTS.

not a bill of needs.

Hawkmoon
January 27, 2005, 04:01 PM
The floowing is from a Court TV web article on the incident. Note that the statistics apparently refer to pre-incident statistics, because the article says that Howard "later" got a gun ban eneacted.

Although much of the blame for Port Arthur was centered on the availability of guns used in violent crimes, Australia's homicide statistics prove otherwise. Tasmania, Martin Bryant's home state, has the lowest murder rate in the country with just 0.85 murders per 100,000 population, a rate far lower than Japan which has some of the strictest gun laws in the world. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, fists, knives and blunt instruments are the most frequently used weapons in homicides, with guns accounting for just 25%.

Despite numerous protests, Prime Minister John Howard later implemented sweeping reforms regarding gun ownership in Australia which included bans on the importation and sale of most "military style" semi-automatic weapons.

Of critical importance, I think, is the comment that Tasmania's murder rate at the time was far LOWER than that of Japan, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the world. It stands to reason, therefore, that lack of (legal) guns does not in any way equate to lack of murders.

ZekeLuvs1911
January 27, 2005, 04:17 PM
Vindi C,
We are more than ready to debate you and PROVE to you that Gun Control is an utter fantasy. However, for you to come to us pretending to be someone else and not just coming out straight to me just proves how disingenious you are.

Gus Dddysgrl
January 27, 2005, 04:23 PM
You can't accuse him of vanishing. He said he was going away for the weekend and when he returned he would post his evidence. Now if he has charts and stats that support the way he thinks and feels then we must question the authority of where he gets his information. I had read a couple of articles that said when Australia banned gun crime went up etc.

VC- I'm sorry you have had bad experiences both in life and here. I do not pity your loss, though it must be great, I pity you. Instead of wanting to protect those you love, you would make them even more of a victim. I will never be a helpless victim. I may at some point be a victim, but believe me the person who choses me to be their target will not live to regret that decision.

No matter what happens there will always be crime, bad people and victims. I don't care what law you make, bad people will get guns. They have been doing it illegally the whole time. You can make a law banning guns, but that will only ban the good people from getting guns. That is why we as good people chose to carry guns. So that if someone comes in and starts shooting, we can take them out before more people get hurt. An armed society is a polite society.

Many people here have many good points. I hope you do not get too offended. Especially since you opened yourself up to it. Like someone said we don't think all of you say "cricky mate" and wrestle gators, and not all Americans or gunonwers are rednecks. Many will look down on you since you are young. I hope you pick out the good gun advice and learn from these people. Youth often brings passion. Your passion I fear is very misplaced in the lies you've been told. Also you may be quite full of

I'm sorry to know that you may never change your mind because of a bad experience. You are still young and I hope you learn much more about the responsible carry of firearms before you end up like your sis, a poor helpless victim.

Gus

spacemanspiff
January 27, 2005, 04:27 PM
and btw, whats wrong with stroking my guns? most nights i say my good night prayer with my battle rifle in hand:

This is my rifle! There are many like it but this one is mine. My rifle is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life. Without me, my rifle is useless. Without my rifle I am useless. I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than my enemy, who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me. I will. Before God I swear this creed: my rifle and myself are defenders of my country, we are the masters of my enemy, we are the saviors of my life. So be it, until there is no enemy, but peace. Amen.

:D

Spinner
January 27, 2005, 04:31 PM
Vindi c wrote:
I'll leave you with some background behind the gun ban in Australia. The primeminister had been thinking it over for sometime when one day something tipped the scales. Two men walked into a coffee shop in Tasmania with two sports bags FULL of guns, long story short there where 14 killed, excluding the shooters. Among the dead was a 4 year old girl, my sister who would be older than me now.

I believe the only shooting to occur in Tasmania in recent times was the Port Arthur incident in which A SINGLE SHOOTER with ONE firearm walked into The Broad Arrow Cafe and started shooting people. He then left the coffee shop and continued to shoot at and kill 34 people in total in the township of Port Arthur with other firearms before barricading himself in a building and setting fire to it.

Vindi c just lost a whole heap of credibility in my book with that description of the Port Arthur incident. If you were personally connected to it, and I assume having your sister killed would make you personally connected, I would have thought that you'd at least get the story straight. If she was 4 and was an older sister maybe vindi c was too young to know at the time and has been told what happened incorrectly and hasn't bothered to find out the truth. That doesn't do a lot for credibility in my book.

I'd suggest that vindi c might need to have some facts at their disposal before entering into a debate.

If the story is true and vindi c's sister was killed at Port Arthur then I extend my sympathies, however, a knee-jerk response without logic or fact does nothing to prevent a re-occurrence of that type of incident. The Port Arthur incident was a failure on many levels and was a tragedy well before the shooter ever picked up his gun and walked into that coffee shop.

You can't legislate to control lunatics and criminals; the lunatics don't operate within the same sphere of rules and laws as the rest of us and the criminals just break laws .... that's why they're criminals.

Spinner

280PLUS
January 27, 2005, 04:36 PM
Was he talking Fahrenheit or Celsius

Last time I checked mine was 130, kinda warm either way.

Not bad for a gunstroking red neck.

:neener:

MENSA wants me but I'm too smart to fork over the $45 they want for a membership.

:rolleyes:

Amadeus
January 27, 2005, 04:40 PM
I am not sure I understand this need of yours to demand that gun owners debate with you over their beliefs, wants, needs, and rights.

Jay Kominek
January 27, 2005, 04:46 PM
Was he talking Fahrenheit or Celsius
Maybe Kelvin or Rankines.
That ought to cover us all nicely. :)

MAUSER88
January 27, 2005, 04:48 PM
Vin your nothing but an elitist from an ex-penal colony. Jealous because you don't live in the GREATEST county in the world. You just a sad pathetic wannabe. I am a gun owner beacuse I can be. period! Go troll elsewhere! :cuss:

mjb
January 27, 2005, 04:54 PM
Vindi C,
I disagree with your argument that gun control had decreased crime in your country. I have seen statistics that prove otherwise, the one in this forum is good enough for me. Everyone knows that criminals are able to obtain firearms. In your country that makes the civilian population defenseless against armed criminals. Are you telling me if a burglar broke into my parents home and attempted to harm my 70 year old mother she should try to find a non-violent way out of it, without using a gun? There isn't any logic to your statements. They are full of emotion only. :banghead: :banghead:

only1asterisk
January 27, 2005, 05:03 PM
Where did I put that ignore list button?

Oh, here it is!

P95Carry
January 27, 2005, 05:31 PM
I fear this thread is about outa gas ... and IMO is not gonna progress much further in a useful way - there is too much potential for less than THR input.

Some folks have been extraordinarily patient and posted great thoughts and information - I thank them for that. Their words will hopefully be read and absorbed usefully.

If I am deemed wrong to close this then please holler.

If you enjoyed reading about "Well i'm sorry all" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!