The firearm thread

[Pound]

Fair enough - The ultimate issue for me - is that it's fine if someone doesn't like Guns. The part I get annoyed with is when they use the tyranny of the State to push through their viewpoint. And I do use the word Tyranny for a reason - the Article you posted is it.

There's some ancillary things - such as no other alternatives were considered, the hearing process wasn't objective, the submissions process only allowing 1 day for public submissions, the legislation itself having multiple items that don't make technical sense or are reliant on the police to interpret the legislation (they don't, that's why there are Courts an Judges)

There's a secondary issue - which is that there are numerous instances throughout history of a certain chains of Events:

Far-Left governments use a tragedy to enact stringent Firearm control to disarm the Population > Firearms are confiscated > Law Abiding Citizens are targeted by heavy-handed Police or specialist units > Government cracks down on speech and actions that it deems 'dangerous' > People resist the restrictions on their freedoms > The government grants itself further powers under the guise of protections > The government suspends normal judiciary processes due to 'national emergency' > Genocide and Mass Torture.

Some people see us at step 4 out of an 8 step path.

I like the way you argue fine sir, you raise some interesting points.

Now if only the average Joe public put a bit more thought into their decision making instead of just using knee jerk emotional ones, then this world would be much less of a mess....

[husaberg]

Well things like, the number of officers, the amount of fire arms, and that they pointed a rifle at his 12-year-old daughter.......

I'm pretty sure they are facts, and not somebody's opinion...

But anything else he claimed in the article, as you say, could very well just be his opinion, without hearing both sides of the story.

Really was how do you figure that one out? He also refiused to be named doesnt that strike you as being odd.
Just because he said it happened doesn't make it a fact?
As for the amount of people, how many people do the families and colleagues of Senior Constable Len Snee Senior Constables Bruce Miller and Grant Diver think should be used to do a raid for someone they know is armed and they consider dangerous?
Or to preform surveillance Sgt Don Wilkinson's family and friends might have a different opinion as would Detective Constable Duncan Taylors family or Constable Glenn McKibbins or Sergeant Stewart Graeme Guthrie he fired a warning shot before he was shot in the head, Or Constable Peter William Murphy's, Constable James Thomas Richardson, and Constable Bryan Leslie Schultz, Detective Sergeant Neville Wilson Power,, and Detective Inspector Wallace Chalmers, Traffic Officer John Kehoe, Sergeant William Cooper, Constable Frederick William Jordan, Constable Percy Campbell Tulloch, and Constable Edward Mark Best, or Constable Thomas Heep Constable James Dorgan, Constable Vivian Duddings plus other i have liely missed.
As for knee jerk reactions so exactly how many large scale massacres does it take before we can decide gun laws should be changed? before it is not considered a knee jerk 10,2030?
Practically All the changes implemented are ones that were recommended from a law and order select committee carried out years ago.

[Pound]

Really was how do you figure that one out? He also refiused to be named doesnt that strike you as being odd.
Just because he said it happened doesn't make it a fact?
The amount of people how many people do the families of Senior Constable Len Snee Senior Constables Bruce Miller and Grant Diver think should be used to do a raid?
As for knee jerk reactions so exactly how many large scale masacres does it take before we can decide gun laws should be changed?
Practically All the changes implemented are ones that were recommended from a law and order select committee carried out years ago.

Well if you are going that far, you could just go around denying anything anybody says as just being "opinion".

Changing the gun laws does not get to the core of the problem....

That is an entirely different discussion all together, and in MY opinion, a far more important one.

[husaberg]

Well if you are going that far, you could just go around denying anything anybody says as just being "opinion".

Changing the gun laws does not get to the core of the problem....

That is an entirely different discussion all together, and in MY opinion, a far more important one.

You stated it was a fact it was not how much more is there to say?
As for the changing of the gun laws, Yeah but your opinion is in the minority.
The reason it was able to be so easily accomplished was he had free and easy access to the weapons used. Weapons and magazines that should never have been available to purchase on a A cat.
I am surprised you cant see and understand that.
You never answered my question exactly how many massacres does it take to see the gun laws need to be changed and fr you not to call it a Knee jerk reaction?

[Graystone]

Let's See:

Nice, London Bridge, Barcelona, New York

vs

Christchurc

So, you tell me - which one is actually being used by Terrorists?



Well, let's pick Nice - 87 dead vs 51 dead - so which is more deadly?

Also - have you decided on a set of principals when the Government can vote in opposition to what the Majority want yet? Or are you just going to hide and red-rep because you know you can't?

How divorced from reality do you need to be to list Christchurch as the only terrorist attack using guns? Such stupidity renders the rest of your post not even worth reading...

[TheDemonLord]

Now if I'd said that, I'd be called a conspiracy theorist.

(By the way, the first step should read 'use or engineer a tragedy').

There are 2 key differences.

The first is the use of the word 'Engineer' in regards to a Tragedy, and if I was to put on a tinfoil hat, I might well question the reduction in Manpower for the Arms Officers and I would seriously question how anyone, let alone an officer, would think that someone that knew a guy from an internet forum would or even should qualify as a Character reference.

The second difference is that you would ascribe a grand directing influence, carefully planning each element in the aims of some higher goal. I don't. The chain of events can easily be explained by people believing that what they are doing is for a greater good.

[TheDemonLord]

How divorced from reality do you need to be to list Christchurch as the only terrorist attack using guns? Such stupidity renders the rest of your post not even worth reading...

It's not the only one, however - the point (which you so wonderfully missed) was that relatively few Terrorist attacks use Firearms - Home-Made Bombs tend to be the weapon of choice, Trucks also being popular for a time.

And we know why you refuse to read further - we can't have the truth denting that precious narrative of yours.

[TheDemonLord]

I like the way you argue fine sir, you raise some interesting points.

Now if only the average Joe public put a bit more thought into their decision making instead of just using knee jerk emotional ones, then this world would be much less of a mess....

Can't wait until you guys all reach a general consensus and happily agree with each other.

I'd say that's close enough.

[Pound]

You stated it was a fact it was not how much more is there to say?
As for the changing of the gun laws, Yeah but your opinion is in the minority.
The reason it was able to be so easily accomplished was he had free and easy access to the weapons used. Weapons and magazines that should never have been available to purchase on a A cat.
I am surprised you cant see and understand that.
You never answered my question exactly how many massacres does it take to see the gun laws need to be changed and fr you not to call it a Knee jerk reaction?

You misunderstand, I agree with changing the gun laws, but I don't agree that it will solve the root of the problem (much the same way a massive sugar tax would reduce diabetic related illness and deaths, or banning even alcohol).


Well, hopefully only 1 knee jerk reaction........ Is that what you wanted to hear?

I am like you, for the greater good, go ahead ban them, but as I said, it will not solve the issue.

Ask yourself the question, why did this only just happen now?

Why not last year? Why not 5 years ago? Why not 10 years ago?

Why did he do it?

1 word...... Religion.

ALL RELIGIONS MUST GO...

As I said, a completely different discussion all together....

[Pound]

I'd say that's close enough.

I tip my hat to you good sir

To successfully argue without personal attacks is a rare feat these days, and that level of self restraint is to be commended.

[jasonu]

You misunderstand, ..

Haven't you figured it out yet? That twat argues for the sake of arguing.

[Katman]

The second difference is that you would ascribe a grand directing influence, carefully planning each element in the aims of some higher goal. I don't. The chain of events can easily be explained by people believing that what they are doing is for a greater good.

Really? I thought your steps were describing the process of a government trying to achieve complete control and dominance over it's citizens.

(And many governments aren't opposed to engineering tragedies to manipulate that process).

[jasonu]

(And many governments aren't opposed to engineering tragedies to manipulate that process).

The tooth monster has done quite nicely out of the Chch shootings...

[Pound]

Haven't you figured it out yet? That twat argues for the sake of arguing.

Indeed, I am finally starting to realize that he simply argues to suit his agenda.....

Sure, I love a good argument as much as the next guy, but I swear, some people just seem to want to be contentious.....

[Graystone]

It's not the only one, however - the point (which you so wonderfully missed) was that relatively few Terrorist attacks use Firearms - Home-Made Bombs tend to be the weapon of choice, Trucks also being popular for a time.

And we know why you refuse to read further - we can't have the truth denting that precious narrative of yours.

Right, so I missed the point about home made bombs, considering you did not mention them, perhaps you missed making it?

The time period your examples spanned is 2016 through 2018, which were the more and less popular methods of terrorist attack over that time? I mean, with such a keen interest in reality, surely this should be important to you...

My questions were to give context to your comparison re trucks/guns for terrorist use. Your evasion and misleading answer suggest you know the answer will not support your agenda, and shows you still cannot cope with an honest and open discussion. It is that which renders the rest of your post not worth replying to.