Well i'm sorry all

[Aguila Blanca]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Just FYI...

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

 

[Aguila Blanca]

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]

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]

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]

another thing to remember vindi is that our country has a Bill of RIGHTS.

not a bill of needs.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Spinner]

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]

I.Q. Lower than room temp?

Was he talking Fahrenheit or Celsius

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

Not bad for a gunstroking red neck.



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

 

[Amadeus]

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]

Was he talking Fahrenheit or Celsius

Maybe Kelvin or Rankines.
That ought to cover us all nicely.

 

[MAUSER88]

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!

 

[mjb]

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]

Where did I put that ignore list button?

Oh, here it is!

 

[P95Carry]

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.